UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(X) ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

OR ( ) TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 000-26280

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

13-3782225

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

c/o Ceres Managed Futures LLC

522 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10036

(Address and Zip Code of principal executive offices)

(855) 672-4468

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes No X

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes No X

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

Yes X No

Indicate by check mark 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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this form 10-K X

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


Large accelerated filer	Accelerated filer	Non-accelerated filer X
Smaller reporting company	Emerging growth company

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes No X

Limited Partnership Units with an aggregate value of $11,796,428 were outstanding and held by non-affiliates as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

As of February 28, 2018, 966,993.199 Limited Partnership Units were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(See Next Page)

Portions of the following documents are incorporated by reference as follows:


Documents Incorporated	Part of Form 10-K

Annual Report to Morgan Stanley Spectrum Series
Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2017		II, III and IV

PART I

Item 1. Business.

(a) General Development of Business. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Strategic L.P. (the “Partnership”) is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1994 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy, and agricultural products (collectively, “Futures Interests”). The General Partner (as defined below) may also determine to invest up to all of the Partnership’s assets in United States (“U.S.”) Treasury bills and/or money market mutual funds, including money market mutual funds managed by Morgan Stanley or its affiliates. The Partnership commenced trading operations on November 2, 1994. The Partnership is one of the Morgan Stanley Spectrum Series of funds, comprised of the Partnership, Ceres Tactical Currency L.P. (formerly, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Currency and Commodity L.P.), Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. and prior to its termination on December 31, 2017, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Technical L.P.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, acts as the general partner (“Ceres” or the “General Partner”) and commodity pool operator of the Partnership. As of January 1, 2017, Ceres became a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. (“MSD Holdings”). MSD Holdings is ultimately owned by Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley is a publicly held company whose shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Morgan Stanley is engaged in various financial services and other businesses. Prior to January 1, 2017, the General Partner was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC (“MSSB Holdings”). Prior to June 28, 2013, Morgan Stanley indirectly owned a majority equity interest and Citigroup Inc. indirectly owned a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings.

The Partnership’s commodity broker is Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”), a registered futures commission merchant. MS&Co. also acts as the counterparty on all trading of foreign currency forward contracts. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, doing business as Morgan Stanley Wealth Management (“Morgan Stanley Wealth Management”), is a principal subsidiary of MSD Holdings. MS&Co. and its affiliates act as the custodians of the Partnership’s assets available for trading in Futures Interests. MS&Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. The Partnership also deposits a portion of its cash in a non-trading account at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

The trading advisor to the Partnership is Aventis Asset Management, LLC (“Aventis” or the “Trading Advisor”).

Aventis manages the assets of the Partnership through the Partnership’s investment in MB Master Fund L.P. (“MB Master Fund”), which is an affiliated fund. Ceres is also the general partner and commodity pool operator to MB Master Fund.

Effective December 31, 2017, Ceres terminated the advisory agreement among the General Partner, PGR Capital L.P. (“PGR”) and PGR Master Fund L.P. (“PGR Master Fund”), pursuant to which PGR traded PGR Master Fund’s (and, indirectly, the Partnership’s) assets in Futures Interests. Consequently, PGR ceased all Futures Interest trading on behalf of PGR Master Fund (and, indirectly, the Partnership). Ceres reallocated the assets formerly allocated by the Partnership to PGR to the remaining Trading Advisor of the Partnership.

Effective January 31, 2016, Ceres terminated the advisory agreement among the General Partner, Blenheim Capital Management, L.L.C. (“Blenheim”) and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney BHM I, LLC (“BHM I, LLC”), pursuant to which Blenheim traded a portion of BHM I, LLC’s (and, indirectly, the Partnership’s) assets in Futures Interests. Consequently, Blenheim ceased all Futures Interest trading on behalf of BHM I, LLC (and, indirectly, the Partnership). Ceres reallocated the assets formerly allocated by the Partnership to Blenheim among the remaining Trading Advisors of the Partnership. References herein to the Trading Advisor or the Trading Advisors may also include, as relevant, PGR and Blenheim. MB Master Fund, PGR Master Fund and BHM I, LLC are collectively referred to as the “Funds.”

A description of the trading activities and focus of each Trading Advisor can be found under “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

The General Partner, on behalf of the Partnership, has entered into a management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) with the Trading Advisor. The Management Agreement provides that the Trading Advisor has sole discretion in determining the investments of the assets of the Partnership allocated to the Trading Advisor by the General Partner. Pursuant to the Management Agreement, the Partnership pays the Trading Advisor a flat-rate monthly management fee and an incentive fee.

The management fee for the Partnership is accrued at a rate of 1/12th of 1.25% (a 1.25% annual rate) per month of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to Aventis on the first day of each month. The monthly management fee payable by the Partnership to PGR, prior to its termination on December 31, 2017, was 1/12th of 1% (a 1% annual rate) per month of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to PGR on the first day of each month. The monthly management fee payable by the Partnership to Blenheim, prior to its termination on January 31, 2016, was 1/12th of 2% (a 2% annual rate) per month of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to Blenheim on the first day of the month. Effective March 1, 2014, the Partnership indirectly paid Blenheim, through BHM I, LLC, for management fees related to Blenheim. Prior to March 1, 2014, the monthly management fee paid by the Partnership to Blenheim was 1/4th of 1% (a 3% annual rate) of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to Blenheim on the first day of each month. Prior to March 1, 2014, the management fee payable by the Partnership to Aventis was 1/12th of 1.5% (a 1.5% annual rate) of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to Aventis on the first day of each month.

The Partnership pays a quarterly incentive fee equal to 20% of the trading profits experienced with respect to the Partnership’s net assets allocated to Aventis as of the end of each calendar quarter. Prior to its termination on December 31, 2017, the Partnership paid a yearly incentive fee equal to 20% of the trading profits experienced with respect to the Partnership’s net assets allocated to PGR as of the end of each calendar year. Prior to its termination on January 31, 2016, the Partnership paid a quarterly incentive fee equal to 20% of the trading profits experienced with respect to the Partnership’s net assets allocated to Blenheim as of the end of each calendar quarter. Effective March 1, 2014, the Partnership directly paid BHM I, LLC for incentive fees related to Blenheim. Prior to March 1, 2014, the Partnership paid a monthly incentive fee equal to 15% of the trading profits experienced with respect to the net assets allocated to Blenheim as of the end of each calendar month.

Trading profits represent the amount by which profits from trading in Futures Interests exceed losses after brokerage, ongoing placement agent, General Partner and management fees, as applicable, are deducted. For all Trading Advisors with trading losses, no incentive fee is paid in subsequent periods until all such losses are recovered. Cumulative trading losses are adjusted on a pro-rata basis for the net amount of each month’s redemptions.

The current term of the Management Agreement with Aventis will expire on June 30, 2018 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or Aventis. In general, the Management Agreement may be terminated upon notice by either party.

Effective April 1, 2014, the flat rate brokerage fee for the Partnership was reduced from 6.0% per annum (paid monthly) to 4.0% per annum (paid monthly) of the Partnership’s net assets.

Effective October 1, 2014, the flat rate brokerage fee equal to an annual rate of 4.0% of the Partnership’s net assets, was separated into (i) a general partner administrative fee payable to the General Partner (the “General Partner fee”) equal to an annual rate of 2.0% of the Partnership’s net assets and (ii) an ongoing placement agent fee payable to Morgan Stanley Wealth Management equal to an annual rate of 2.0% of the Partnership’s net assets. The October 1, 2014 fee changes, in the aggregate, did not exceed the flat rate brokerage fee and, accordingly, there was no change to the aggregate fees incurred by the Partnership.

In July 2015, the General Partner delegated certain administrative functions to SS&C Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, currently doing business as SS&C GlobeOp (the “Administrator”). Pursuant to a master services agreement, the Administrator furnishes certain administrative, accounting, regulatory reporting, tax and other services as agreed from time to time. In addition, the Administrator maintains certain books and records of the Partnership. The General Partner pays or reimburses the Partnership, from the General Partner fee it receives from the Partnership, the ordinary administrative expenses of the Partnership. This includes the expenses related to the engagement of the Administrator. Therefore, the engagement of the Administrator did not impact the Partnership’s break-even point.

The Partnership began the year at a net asset value per unit of limited partnership interest (“Unit(s)”) of $10.92 and decreased 7.2% to $10.13 per Unit on December 31, 2017. For a more detailed description of the Partnership’s business see subparagraph (c).

(b) Financial Information about Segments. For financial information reporting purposes, the Partnership is deemed to engage in one industry segment, the speculative trading of Futures Interests. The relevant financial information is presented in Part II. “Item 6. Selected Financial Data.” and “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

(c) Narrative Description of Business. The Partnership is in the business of speculative trading of Futures Interests pursuant to trading instructions provided by the Trading Advisor. See Items 1(a) and (b) above for a complete description of the Partnership’s business. The information requested in Section 101(c)(i) through (xiii) of Regulation S-K is not applicable to the Partnership. Additionally, the Partnership does not have any employees. The directors and officers of the General Partner are listed in Part III. “Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.”

(d) Financial Information about Geographic Areas. The Partnership has not engaged in any operations in non-U.S. countries; however, the Partnership (through the commodity brokers) enters into forward contract transactions where non-U.S. banks are the contracting parties and trades of Futures Interests on non-U.S. exchanges.

(e) Available Information. The Partnership files an Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to these reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). You may read and copy any document filed by the Partnership at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for information on the Public Reference Room. The Partnership does not maintain an internet website; however, the Partnership’s SEC filings are available to the public from the EDGAR database on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. The Partnership’s CIK number is 0000925263.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

This section includes some of the principal risks that investors will face with an investment in the Partnership.

THE UNITS IN THE PARTNERSHIP ARE SPECULATIVE AND INVOLVE A HIGH DEGREE OF RISK. THEY ARE SUITABLE ONLY FOR PERSONS WHO CAN AFFORD TO LOSE THEIR ENTIRE INVESTMENT.

Risks Relating to the Partnership

Single-Advisor Funds Lack the Diversity of Multi-Advisor Funds. The Partnership is managed by a single trading advisor. Therefore, the Partnership lacks the potential benefit of trading advisor diversification available in funds that are managed by more than one trading advisor.

You Should Not Rely on Past Performance of the General Partner or the Trading Advisor In Deciding To Purchase Units. The past investment performance of other entities managed by the General Partner and the Trading Advisor is not necessarily indicative of the Partnership’s future results. No assurance can be given that the General Partner will succeed in meeting the investment objectives of the Partnership. You may lose all or substantially all of your investment in the Partnership.

The General Partner believes that past performance of the Trading Advisor may be of interest to investors, but encourages you to look at such information as an example of the respective objectives of the General Partner and the Trading Advisor rather than as any indication that the Partnership’s objectives will, in fact, be achieved.

The Partnership Incurs Substantial Charges. The Partnership must pay substantial charges, and must generate profits and interest income which exceed its fixed costs in order to avoid depletion of its assets. The Partnership is required to pay monthly management fees to the Trading Advisor regardless of the performance of the Partnership. In addition, the Partnership pays the Trading Advisor an incentive fee.

Incentive Fees May be Paid by the Partnership Even Though the Partnership Sustains Trading Losses. The Partnership pays the Trading Advisor an incentive fee based upon the new trading profits it generates for the Partnership. These new trading profits include unrealized appreciation on open positions. Accordingly, it is possible that the Partnership will pay an incentive fee on new trading profits that do not become realized. Also, the Trading Advisor will retain all incentive fees paid to it, even if it incurs a subsequent loss after payment of an incentive fee. Due to the fact that incentive fees are paid to the Trading Advisor on a quarterly basis, it is possible that an incentive fee may be paid to the Trading Advisor during a year in which the assets allocated to the Trading Advisor suffer a loss for the year. Because the Trading Advisor receives an incentive fee based on the new trading profits earned by the Trading Advisor, the Trading Advisor may have an incentive to make investments that are riskier than would be the case in the absence of such an incentive fee being paid to the Trading Advisor based on new trading profits.

Restricted Investment Liquidity in the Units. There is no secondary market for the Units, and you generally may not redeem your Units other than as of the last Business Day of each month. Your right to receive payment for a redemption of some or all of your Units is dependent upon (a) the Partnership having sufficient assets to pay its liabilities on the redemption date, and (b) the General Partner’s receipt of your Request for Redemption in such manner as determined by the General Partner no later than 3:00 P.M., New York City time, on the last day of the month. The General Partner will not permit a transfer, sale, pledge or assignment of Units unless it is satisfied that the transfer, sale, pledge or assignment would not be in violation of Delaware law or applicable federal, state or foreign securities laws and notwithstanding any transfer, sale, pledge or assignment, the Partnership will continue to be classified as a partnership rather than as an association or publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). No transfer, sale, pledge or assignment of Units will be effective or recognized by the Partnership if the transfer, sale, pledge or assignment would result in the termination of the Partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Any attempt to transfer, sell, pledge or assign Units in violation of the Partnership’s limited partnership agreement (the “Limited Partnership Agreement”) will be ineffective.

General Partner Redemptions. The General Partner is required to maintain a capital contribution at least equal to the greater of: (a) 1% of aggregate capital contributions to the Partnership (including the General Partner’s contribution) and (b) $25,000. The General Partner may otherwise redeem any portion of its investment in the Partnership at any time without notice to the limited partners. For any such redemption, the General Partner will redeem its Units at the end of the month in the same manner as any limited partner would follow to redeem Units. Additionally, the General Partner has the right to redeem Units it holds in the event redemptions for limited partners are suspended.

The Partnership’s Structure Has Conflicts of Interest.

The General Partner, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and MS&Co. are affiliates. As a result, the fees and other compensation received by these parties and other terms relating to the operation of the Partnership and the sale of Units have not been negotiated independently. The officers and directors of the General Partner are also employees of Morgan Stanley or one of its subsidiaries and may have a conflict of interest between their responsibility to the General Partner and the commodity pools it operates. Some of the compensation for such officers and directors of the General Partner may be based in part on the profitability of Morgan Stanley and its managed futures business operated by the General Partner.

MS&Co. can benefit from bid/ask spreads to the extent the Trading Advisor executes over-the-counter (“OTC”) foreign exchange trades with MS&Co. and bid/ask spreads are charged.

The Trading Advisor, the General Partner, Morgan Stanley and its affiliates and subsidiaries may trade Futures Interests for their own accounts, and thereby compete with the Partnership for positions. Also, the other commodity pools managed by the General Partner and the Trading Advisor may compete with the Partnership for Futures Interests positions. These conflicts can result in less favorable prices on the Partnership’s transactions. These pools may also pay lower fees, including lower commodity brokerage fees and/or commissions, than the Partnership pays. The records of any such trading will not be available for inspection by limited partners.

For excess cash which is not invested, MS&Co. and the General Partner retain any interest earned on cash in the Partnership’s account in excess of the rate specified in the Memorandum. That could create an incentive for the General Partner to retain excess cash in cash instead of permitted investments.

The General Partner may purchase money market mutual fund shares from mutual funds affiliated and/or unaffiliated with the General Partner.

No specific policies regarding conflicts of interest have been adopted by the General Partner, the Partnership or any of their affiliates, and you will be dependent on the good faith of, and legal and fiduciary obligations imposed on, the parties involved with such conflicts to resolve them equitably.

An Investment in Units May Not Diversify an Overall Portfolio. Because Futures Interests have historically performed independently of traditional investments in equities and bonds, the General Partner believes that managed futures funds like the Partnership can diversify a traditional portfolio of equities and bonds. However, the General Partner cannot assure you that the Partnership will perform with a significant degree of non- or low-correlation to your other investments in the future. You may lose your entire investment in the Partnership.

The Partnership Is Not A Registered Investment Company. The Partnership is not required to register, and is not registered, as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”). Accordingly, investors will not have the protections afforded by the Investment Company Act (which, among other matters, requires investment companies to have a majority of disinterested directors and regulates the relationship between the trading advisor and the investment company).

Risks Related to Regulation of the Partnership and General Partner

The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation of Morgan Stanley Could Affect the Activities of the Partnership. As a bank holding company (“BHC”) that has elected financial holding company (“FHC”) status under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (“BHCA”), Morgan Stanley and its affiliates are subject to comprehensive, consolidated supervision and regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”). Since the General Partner is a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, the Federal Reserve will treat the Partnership as an affiliate of Morgan Stanley. As a result, the Partnership will be subject to the BHCA and the Federal Reserve’s implementing regulations and interpretations, which are subject to change.

A significant focus of the regulatory framework that applies to Morgan Stanley is to ensure that Morgan Stanley and its subsidiaries operate in a safe and sound manner, with sufficient capital, earnings and liquidity to allow Morgan Stanley to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. and Morgan Stanley Private Bank, National Association (the “Banks”). These Banks must remain well capitalized and well managed if Morgan Stanley is to maintain its FHC status and continue to engage in the widest range of permissible financial activities. In addition, the general exercise by the Federal Reserve of its regulatory, supervisory and enforcement authority with respect to Morgan Stanley and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”) could result in the need for Morgan Stanley to change its business practices or the scope of its current lines of business, including certain limited divestitures. Although such changes could have an impact on and consequences for Morgan Stanley, the General Partner and the Partnership, any limited divestiture should not directly involve the Partnership.

The Units are not being offered by the Banks, and as such: (1) are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), (2) are not deposits or other obligations of the Banks, (3) are not guaranteed by the Banks and (4) involve investment risks, including possible loss of principal.

Effect on the Partnership of the “Volcker Rule.” In December 2013, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) each adopted a final rule (“Final Rule”) implementing Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act (which section is commonly referred to as the Volcker Rule). The Final Rule became effective on April 1, 2014 and is being implemented over time. Covered fund investments and relationships in place 2014 or after became subject to the Volcker Rule and Final Rule on July 21, 2015. Covered fund investments and relationships in place before 2014 are subject to an extended conformance period granted by the Federal Reserve in July 2016, which expired on July 21, 2017. Among other things, the Final Rule limits the ability of “banking entities” (which term includes any insured depository institution, any company controlling an insured depository institution or any affiliate or subsidiary of either) to acquire or retain an equity or other ownership interest in, or “sponsor”, “covered funds.” The Final Rule, however, permits banking entities to organize and offer a covered fund if several conditions are satisfied, including the requirement that the banking entity does not acquire or retain an equity or other ownership interest in the covered fund except for a de minimis investment, after an initial seeding period. Moreover, all banking entities engaging in proprietary trading or covered funds activities subject to the Final Rule must adopt a compliance program, including meeting certain documentation and reporting requirements. The banking agencies make clear, however, that the terms, scope and detail of the compliance program depend on the types, size, scope and complexity of the activities and business structure of the banking entity.

The Volcker Rule and Final Rule impose a number of restrictions on Morgan Stanley and its affiliates that could affect the Partnership, the General Partner, and the limited partners. For example, to sponsor and invest in the Partnership, Morgan Stanley believes that it will need to comply with the Final Rule’s “asset management” exemption to the Volcker Rule’s prohibition on sponsoring and investing in covered funds. Under this exemption, investments made by Morgan Stanley (aggregated with certain affiliate and employee investments) in the Partnership will be limited to 3% of the Partnership’s total ownership interests, measured by reference to both number of ownership interests and the fair market value of such ownership interests (“per fund limit”). In addition, total investments in covered funds by Morgan Stanley (aggregated with certain affiliate and employee investments) in reliance on the asset management exception and certain other exemptions are limited to 3% of Morgan Stanley’s tier 1 capital (“aggregate limit”). A change in the tier 1 capital of Morgan Stanley may mean that retention of some or all of the ownership interests in the Partnership by Morgan Stanley or certain of its affiliates and employees would violate the aggregate investment limit. In addition, redemptions from the Partnership, withdrawal or default of an investor in the Partnership, or an excuse or election to not participate in a call for capital contributions by an investor in the Partnership, may cause a violation of the per fund limit by Morgan Stanley. To the extent that the retention of an interest in the Partnership or further investment in the Partnership by Morgan Stanley or certain of its affiliates and employees would result in a violation of either the per fund limit or the aggregate limit, then Morgan Stanley and certain of its affiliates and employees may be required to dispose, transfer or otherwise reduce some or all of its interests in the Partnership or may be prohibited, entirely or partially, from making further investments in the Partnership.

The Final Rule also contains a general prohibition on “covered transactions,” as defined in Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended (“FRA”), and certain other transactions set forth in Section 23B of the FRA, between a banking entity and any covered fund (or any other covered fund controlled by such covered fund) (i) for which the banking entity serves, directly or indirectly, as the investment manager, investment adviser, commodity trading advisor or sponsor, or (ii) that was organized and offered by the banking entity, or (iii) in which the banking entity continues to hold an ownership interest, pursuant to a particular Volcker Rule exemption. These general prohibitions restrict certain lending, hedging, and other transactions and relationships between Morgan Stanley affiliates and the Partnership.

While the General Partner will endeavor to minimize the impact of the Volcker Rule and the Final Rule on the Partnership, Morgan Stanley’s interests in determining what actions to take in implementing a compliance program under the Volcker Rule may conflict with the interests of the Partnership, the General Partner, and the limited partners, all of which may be adversely affected by such actions.

In addition, further restrictions and limitations on Morgan Stanley, the Partnership and the General Partner may emerge as additional regulatory guidance and interpretations are provided on the Volcker Rule and Final Rule. To this end, and despite the issuance of the Final Rule, certain aspects of the Volcker Rule remain unclear and susceptible to alternative interpretations. The foregoing is, thus, not an exhaustive discussion of the potential risks the Volcker Rule poses for Morgan Stanley, the Partnership and the Limited Partners.

Each prospective investor should consult its own legal counsel to determine how it could be impacted by the Volcker Rule, the Final Rule and other aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act.

ANY LOSSES IN THE PARTNERSHIP WILL BE BORNE SOLELY BY INVESTORS IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND NOT BY MORGAN STANLEY AND ITS AFFILIATES. THEREFORE, MORGAN STANLEY’S LOSSES IN THE PARTNERSHIP WILL BE LIMITED TO LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN THE PARTNERSHIP HELD BY MORGAN STANLEY AND ITS AFFILIATES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS INVESTORS IN THE PARTNERSHIP. INTERESTS IN THE PARTNERSHIP ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ARE NOT DEPOSITS, OBLIGATIONS OF, OR ENDORSED OR GUARANTEED IN ANY WAY, BY MORGAN STANLEY AND ITS AFFILIATES. MORGAN STANLEY AND ITS AFFILIATES DO NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, GUARANTEE, ASSUME OR OTHERWISE INSURE THE OBLIGATIONS OR PERFORMANCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP DESCRIBED HEREIN OR ANY COVERED FUND IN WHICH SUCH PARTNERSHIP INVESTS. INVESTORS SHOULD READ THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE INVESTING IN THE PARTNERSHIP. MORGAN STANLEY IS THE SPONSOR OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 619 OF THE DODD-FRANK ACT (“THE VOLCKER RULE”). A DESCRIPTION OF THE ROLE AND SERVICES OF MORGAN STANLEY IS PROVIDED HEREIN.

Assets Held in Accounts at U.S. Banks May Not Be Fully Insured. The assets of the Partnership that are deposited with commodity brokers or their affiliates may be placed in deposit accounts at U.S. banks. The FDIC insures deposits held at insured depository institutions for up to $250,000 (including principal and accrued interest) for each insurable capacity (e.g., individual accounts, joint accounts, corporate accounts, etc.), though deposits in separate branches of an insured institution are not separately insured. If the FDIC were to become receiver of an insured U.S. bank holding deposit accounts that were established by a commodity broker or one of its affiliates, then it is uncertain whether the commodity broker, the affiliate involved, the Partnership, or the investor would be able to reclaim cash in the deposit accounts above $250,000.

Other Federal Agencies, Including the SEC and the CFTC, Regulate Certain Activities of the Partnership and General Partner. Regulatory changes other than banking regulations could adversely affect the Partnership by restricting its trading activities and/or increasing the costs or taxes to which the investors are subject. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, grants the CFTC and SEC broad rulemaking authority to implement various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including comprehensive regulation of the OTC derivatives market and certain foreign exchange transactions. The implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act could adversely affect the Partnership by increasing transaction and/or regulatory compliance costs. In addition, greater regulatory scrutiny may increase the Partnership’s and the General Partner’s exposure to potential liabilities. Increased regulatory oversight can also impose administrative burdens on the General Partner, including, without limitation, responding to investigations and implementing new policies and procedures. As a result, the General Partner’s time, attention and resources may be diverted from portfolio management activities.

Other potentially adverse regulatory initiatives could develop suddenly and without notice.

The General Partner, the Partnership and its Service Providers and their Respective Operations Are Potentially Vulnerable to Cyber-Security Attacks or Incidents. Like other business enterprises, the use of the internet and other electronic media and technology exposes the General Partner, the Partnership and its service providers, and their respective operations, to potential risks from cyber-security attacks or incidents (collectively, “cyber events”). Cyber events may include, for example, unauthorized access to systems, networks or devices, infection from computer viruses or other malicious software code, mishandling or misuse of information and attacks which shut down, disable, slow or otherwise disrupt operations, business processes or website access or functionality. In addition to intentional cyber events, unintentional cyber events can occur. Unintentional cyber events may include, for example, the inadvertent release of confidential information, the mishandling or misuse of information and/or technological limitations or hardware failures (in the markets or otherwise) that constrain the Partnership’s ability to gather, process and communicate information efficiently and securely, without interruption.

Any cyber event could adversely affect the Partnership’s business, financial condition or results of operations and cause the Partnership to incur financial loss and expense, as well as face exposure to regulatory penalties or legal claims, reputational damage and additional costs associated with corrective measures. A cyber-security breach could also jeopardize a limited partner’s personal, confidential, proprietary or other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, the general partner’s or a service provider’s computer systems. A cyber event may cause the Partnership or its service providers to lose proprietary information, suffer data corruption, lose operational capacity (such as, for example, the loss of the ability to process transactions, calculate the Partnership’s net asset value, or allow investors to transact business) and/or fail to comply with applicable privacy and other laws. Among other potentially harmful effects, cyber events also may result in theft, unauthorized monitoring and failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support the Partnership or its service providers.

The nature of malicious cyber-attacks is becoming increasingly sophisticated and neither the General Partner nor the Partnership can control the cyber systems and cyber-security systems of the Trading Advisor or other third-party service providers.

The General Partner May Determine to Invest Up To All of the Partnership’s Assets in U.S. Treasury Bills and/or Money Market Mutual Fund Securities. The General Partner has invested a portion, and may determine to invest up to all, of the Partnership’s assets in U.S. Treasury bills and/or money market mutual funds, including money market mutual funds managed by Morgan Stanley or its affiliates. The Partnership will retain all interest income earned on U.S. Treasury bills and money market mutual fund securities purchased.

In the event that the General Partner is required to liquidate U.S. Treasury bills before they mature, to meet redemption requests or otherwise, the Partnership may incur a loss on such U.S. Treasury bills and/or may be subject to additional fees or other costs. The General Partner will endeavor to maintain sufficient cash in the Partnership’s accounts in order to meet margin requirements and avoid early liquidation of U.S. Treasury bills.

Although a money market mutual fund currently seeks to preserve the value of each of its shares at $1.00 per share, it is possible to incur losses when investing in a money market mutual fund. An investment in a money market mutual fund is not insured or guaranteed by any government agency. A money market mutual fund may experience significant pressures from, among other things, shareholder redemptions, issuer credit downgrades and illiquid markets. There have been some money market mutual funds that have “broken the buck,” which means that, upon redemption, investors in those funds did not receive $1.00 per share for their investments in those funds. Recent rule amendments adopted by the SEC will require certain money market mutual funds to implement floating net asset values in the future that will not preserve the value of each of its shares at $1.00 per share. The implementation of these rule amendments may impact the Partnership’s use of these money market mutual funds for capital preservation purposes.

Allowing Investments by Benefit Plan Investors may Result in Adverse Consequences Under ERISA or the Code. As discussed below under “Purchases by Employee Benefit Plans,” it is the current intent of the General Partner to conduct its operations so that the assets of each class of equity interests in the Partnership should not be deemed to constitute the “plan assets” of Benefit Plan Investors. If, however, the Partnership were deemed to hold “plan assets” of Benefit Plan Investors: (i) ERISA’s fiduciary standards may apply to the Partnership and might materially affect the operations of the Partnership, and (ii) any transaction with the Partnership could be deemed a transaction with each benefit plan investor and may cause transactions into which the Partnership might enter in the ordinary course of business to constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA and/or § 4975 of the Code. In order to avoid having the assets of the Partnership treated as “plan assets,” the General Partner intends to restrict the acquisition and/or redemption of Units, and such restrictions could delay or preclude the ability to transfer or redeem Units, or cause Units to lose value. However, there can be no assurances that this strategy will be successful.

Risks Relating to Futures Interests Trading and the Futures Interests Markets

Futures Interests Trading is Speculative and Volatile. The rapid fluctuations in the market prices of Futures Interests make an investment in the Partnership volatile. Volatility is caused by, among other things, changes in supply and demand relationships; weather; agricultural, trade, fiscal, monetary and exchange control programs; domestic and foreign political and economic events and policies; and changes in interest rates. If the Trading Advisor incorrectly predicts the direction of prices in Futures Interests, large losses may occur. The Partnership’s performance will be volatile on a monthly and an annual basis. The Partnership could lose all or substantially all of its assets.

The Partnership’s Futures Interests Trading is Highly Leveraged such that Small Changes in the Price of the Partnership’s Positions May Result in Substantial Losses. The Trading Advisor may use substantial leverage in trading the Partnership’s assets. Trading Futures Interests involves substantial leverage, which could result in immediate and substantial losses. Due to the low margin deposits normally required in trading Futures Interests (typically between 2% and 15% of the value of the contract purchased or sold), an extremely high degree of leverage is typical of a Futures Interests trading account. As a result, a relatively small price movement in Futures Interests may result in immediate and substantial losses to the investor. For example, if 10% of the face value of a contract is deposited as margin for that contract, a 10% decrease in the value of the contract would cause a total loss of the margin deposit. A decrease of more than 10% in the value of the contract would cause a loss greater than the amount of the margin deposit.

The leverage employed by the Trading Advisor in its trading can vary substantially from month to month. This leverage, expressed as the underlying value of the Partnership’s positions compared to the average net assets of the Partnership, is anticipated to range from two times the Partnership’s net assets to ten times the Partnership’s net assets. Under certain conditions, however, the Partnership’s leverage could exceed (or be less than) such range. The amount of margin required to be deposited with respect to an individual futures contract is determined by the exchange upon which the contract is traded and the commodity broker at which the position is held and may be changed at any time.

Options Trading Can be More Volatile than Futures Trading, and Purchasing and Writing Options Could Result in Trading Losses. The Partnership may trade options on futures. Although successful options trading requires many of the same skills as successful futures trading, the risks are different. Successful options trading requires a trader to assess accurately near-term market volatility because that volatility is immediately reflected in the price of outstanding options. Correct assessment of market volatility can therefore be of much greater significance in trading options than it is in many long-term futures strategies where volatility does not have as great an effect on the price of a futures contract. Specific market movements of the commodities or futures contracts underlying an option cannot accurately be predicted. The purchaser of an option may lose the entire premium paid for the option. The writer, or seller, of a put option collects a premium and risks losing the difference between the strike price and the market price of the underlying commodity or futures contract (less the premium received) if the option buyer exercises its put option. The writer, or seller, of a call option has unlimited risk. A call option writer collects a premium and risks losing the difference between the price it would have to pay to obtain the underlying commodity or futures contract and the strike price (less the premium received) if the option buyer exercises its call option.

Market Illiquidity May Cause Less Favorable Trade Prices. Although the Trading Advisor generally will purchase and sell actively-traded contracts where last trade price information and quoted prices are readily available, the price at which a sale or purchase occurs may differ from the price expected because there may be a delay between receiving a quote and executing a trade, particularly in circumstances where a market has limited trading volume and prices are often quoted for relatively limited quantities. In addition, most U.S. futures exchanges have established “daily price fluctuation limits” which preclude the execution of trades at prices outside of the limit, and, from time to time, the CFTC or the exchanges may suspend trading in market disruption circumstances. In these cases it is possible that the Partnership could be required to maintain a losing position that it otherwise would execute and incur significant losses or be unable to establish a position and miss a profit opportunity.

Factors that can contribute to market illiquidity for exchange-traded contracts include:

exchange-imposed price fluctuation limits;

limits on the number of contracts speculative traders may hold in most commodity markets; and

market disruptions.

The General Partner expects that non-exchange traded contracts will be traded for commodity interests for which there is generally a liquid underlying market. Such markets, however, may experience periods of illiquidity and are also subject to market disruptions.

Since the Trading Advisor already manages sizable assets in the commodity markets, it is possible that the Partnership may encounter illiquid situations. It is impossible to quantify the frequency or magnitude of these risks, however, especially because the conditions often occur unexpectedly.

Trading on Foreign Exchanges Presents Greater Risks to the Partnership than Trading on U.S. Exchanges. The Partnership trades on exchanges located outside the United States. Trading on U.S. exchanges is subject to CFTC regulation and oversight, including, for example, minimum capital requirements for commodity brokers, segregation of customer funds, regulation of trading practices on the exchanges, prohibitions against trading ahead of customer orders, prohibitions against filling orders off exchanges, prescribed risk disclosure statements, testing and licensing of industry sales personnel and other industry professionals, and recordkeeping requirements, and other requirements and restrictions for the purpose of preventing price manipulation and other disruptions to market integrity, avoiding systemic risk, preventing fraud and promoting innovation, competition and financial integrity of transactions. Trading on foreign exchanges is not regulated by the CFTC or any other U.S. governmental agency or instrumentality and may be subject to regulations that are different from those to which U.S. exchange trading is subject, may provide less protection to investors than trading on U.S. exchanges, and may be less vigorously enforced than regulations in the U.S.

Trading on foreign exchanges involves some risks that trading on U.S. exchanges does not, such as:

Lack of Investor Protection Regulation

The rights of the Partnership in the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a non-U.S. market, broker or bank are likely to differ from rights that the Partnership would have in the United States and these rights may be more limited than in the case of failures of U.S. markets, brokers or banks.

Possible Governmental Intervention

Generally, foreign brokers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC or any other U.S. regulator. In addition, the Partnership’s assets held outside of the United States to margin transactions on foreign exchanges are held in accordance with the client assets protection regime and the insolvency laws of the applicable jurisdiction. A foreign government might halt trading in a market and/or take possession of the Partnership’s assets maintained in its country in which case the assets may never be recovered. The General Partner might have little or no notice that such events were happening. In such circumstances, the General Partner may not be able to obtain the Partnership’s assets.

Relatively New Markets

Some foreign exchanges on which the Partnership is permitted to trade may be in developmental stages so that prior price histories may not be indicative of current price patterns.

Exchange-Rate Exposure

The Partnership is valued in U.S. dollars. Contracts on foreign exchanges are usually traded in the local currency. The Partnership’s assets held in connection with contracts priced and settled in a foreign currency may be held in a foreign depository in accounts denominated in a foreign currency. Changes in the value of the local currency relative to the U.S. dollar could cause losses to the Partnership even if the contract traded is profitable.

Risks Associated with Affiliates

The Partnership’s clearing broker may use an affiliate to carry and clear transactions on foreign exchanges. While the use of affiliates can provide certain benefits, it can also pose certain risks. In particular, if a clearing broker or an affiliated foreign broker were to fail, it is likely that all of its affiliated companies would fail or be placed in administration within a relatively brief period of time. Each of these companies would be liquidated in accordance with the bankruptcy laws of the local jurisdiction. Moreover, return of the Partnership’s assets held at affiliated foreign brokers would be delayed, perhaps for a significant period of time, and would be subject to additional administrative costs. If, on the other hand, a clearing broker had cleared its customers’ foreign futures and foreign options transactions through unaffiliated foreign brokers, such broker likely would not have failed and the clearing broker’s bankruptcy trustee could have directed the foreign broker to liquidate all of the Partnership’s positions and return the balance to the trustee for distribution to the Partnership.

The percentage of the Partnership’s positions which are traded on foreign exchanges can vary significantly from month to month.

The Unregulated Nature of Uncleared Trades in the OTC Markets Creates Counterparty Risks that Do Not Exist in Futures Trading on Exchanges or in Cleared Swaps. Unlike futures contracts and cleared swaps, uncleared trades, such as forward contracts, some swaps and some OTC “spot” contracts, are entered into between private parties off an exchange or other trading platform and are not subject to clearing. As a result, the performance of those contracts is not guaranteed by an exchange or its clearinghouse, and the Partnership is at risk with respect to the ability of the counterparty to perform on the contract, including the creditworthiness of the counterparty. Trading of foreign exchange spot contracts or foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps (as such terms are defined in the Dodd-Frank Act), and of uncleared swaps is not regulated or is subject to limited regulation; therefore, there are limited or no specific standards or regulatory supervision of trade pricing and other trading activities that occur in those markets. The Partnership trades such contracts with MS&Co. and is at risk with respect to the creditworthiness and trading practices of MS&Co. as the counterparty to the contracts. See “Trading Swaps Creates Distinctive Risks” below.

Forward Foreign Currency and Spot Contracts Historically Were Not Regulated When Traded Between Certain “Eligible Contract Participants” and Are Subject to Credit Risk. The Partnership may trade forward contracts in foreign currencies and may engage in spot commodity transactions (transactions in physical commodities). These contracts, unlike futures contracts and options on futures, historically were not regulated by the CFTC when traded between certain “eligible contract participants,” as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act. On July 21, 2010, the President signed into law major financial services reform legislation in the form of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act includes foreign currency forwards and foreign currency swaps (as such terms are defined in the Dodd-Frank Act) in the definition of “swap.” The CFTC has been granted authority to regulate all swaps, but grants the U.S. Treasury Department the discretion to exempt foreign currency forwards and foreign currency swaps from all aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act other than reporting, recordkeeping and business conduct rules for swap dealers and major swap participants. In November 2012, Treasury determined that those transactions can be carved out of the swap category, and they are subject only to the noted categories of the Dodd-Frank Act requirements. Therefore, the Partnership will not receive the full benefit of CFTC regulation for certain of their foreign currency trading activities.

The percentage of the Partnership’s positions that are expected to constitute foreign currency forwards and foreign currency swaps can vary substantially from month to month.

Trading Swaps Creates Distinctive Risks. The Trading Advisor may trade in certain swaps. Unlike futures and options on futures contracts, most swap contracts currently are not traded on or cleared by an exchange or clearinghouse. The CFTC currently requires only a limited class of swap contracts (certain interest rate and credit default swaps) to be cleared by a clearinghouse and executed on an exchange or other organized trading platform. In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC will in the future determine which other classes of swap contracts will be required to be cleared by a clearinghouse and executed on an exchange or other organized trading platform. Until such time as these transactions are cleared, the Partnership will be subject to a greater risk of counterparty default on its swaps. Because swaps do not generally involve the delivery of underlying assets or principal, the amount payable upon default and early termination is usually calculated by reference to the current market value of the contract. Swap dealers and major swap participants require the Partnership to deposit initial margin and variation margin as collateral to support the Partnership’s obligation under the swap agreement but may not themselves provide collateral for the benefit of the Partnership (except to the extent required, beginning September 1, 2016, under the rules finalized by the CFTC and the prudential regulators as described below). If the counterparty to such a swap defaults, the Partnership would be a general unsecured creditor for any termination amounts owed by the counterparty to the Partnership as well as for any collateral deposits in excess of the amounts owed by the Partnership to the counterparty, which would likely result in losses to the Partnership.

There are no limitations on daily price movements in swaps. Speculative position limits are not currently applicable to swaps, but in the future may be applicable for swaps on certain commodities. In addition, participants in the swap markets are not required to make continuous markets in the swaps they trade, and determining a market value for calculation of termination amounts can lead to uncertain results.

Trading of swaps has been and will continue to be subject to substantial change under the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulatory action. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, many commodity swaps may be required to be cleared through central clearing parties and executed on exchanges or other organized trading platforms. Security-based swaps will be subject to similar requirements. The CFTC and the prudential regulators that oversee swap dealers finalized rules regarding margin for uncleared swaps that imposed certain requirements beginning September 1, 2016 that may adversely impact the manner in which such swaps are traded and/or settled or increase the costs of such trades. Uncleared swaps will generally be subject to initial and variation margin requirements which may require the Partnership to post collateral to swap dealers and collect collateral from swap dealers. Additional regulatory requirements will apply to all swaps, whether subject to mandatory clearing or not. These include collateral and capital requirements, reporting obligations, speculative position limits for certain swaps, and other regulatory requirements. Swaps which are not offered for clearing by a clearing house will continue to be traded bi-laterally. Such bi-lateral transactions will remain subject to many of the risks discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

Non-U.S. depositories are not subject to U.S. regulation. The Partnership’s assets held in these depositories are subject to the risk that events could occur which would hinder or prevent the availability of these funds for distribution to customers including the Partnership. Such events may include actions by the government of the jurisdiction in which the depository is located including expropriation, taxation, moratoria and political or diplomatic events.

Implementation of Legislation is Not Complete. Rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act and similar legislation in other countries are not yet complete. The impact of future rules on transactions of the type undertaken by the Partnership is not certain.

Changes in Regulation of Swaps Could Lead to Increased Costs. As the Dodd-Frank Act and related rules, as well as analogous legislation and regulations in other countries, are implemented and market infrastructure adapts to the changes, the cost of engaging in trading of swaps and other products could increase, reducing the profits from those trades.

Central Clearing Parties Could Fail. Central clearing parties are highly capitalized. Cleared transactions are supported by initial and variation margin. As a result, failure of a central clearing party is highly unlikely. If a central clearing party were to fail, however, the impact on the financial system in general and on the Partnership’s positions in particular is uncertain and could affect a large portion of the market.

Deregistration of the Commodity Pool Operator or Commodity Trading Advisor Could Disrupt Operations. The General Partner is a registered commodity pool operator and the Trading Advisor is registered with the CFTC as a commodity trading advisor. If the CFTC were to terminate, suspend, revoke or not renew the registration of the General Partner, the General Partner would withdraw as general partner of the Partnership. The limited partners would then determine whether to select a replacement general partner or to dissolve the Partnership. If the CFTC were to terminate, suspend, revoke or not renew the registration of the Trading Advisor, the General Partner would terminate the Trading Advisor’s advisory agreement with the Partnership. The General Partner could reallocate the Partnership’s assets managed by the deregistered Trading Advisor to new trading advisor(s) or terminate the Partnership. No action is currently pending or threatened against the General Partner or the Trading Advisor.

The Partnership is Subject to Speculative Position Limits. U.S. futures exchanges have established speculative position limits (referred to as “position limits”) on the maximum net long or net short position, which any person or group of persons may hold or control in particular futures and options on futures. Most exchanges also limit the amount of fluctuation in commodity futures contract prices on a single trading day. Therefore, a Trading Advisor may have to modify its trading instructions or reduce the size of its position in one or more futures or options contracts in order to avoid exceeding such position limits, which could adversely affect the profitability of the Partnership. The futures exchange may amend or adjust these position limits or the interpretation of how such limits are applied, adversely affecting the profitability of the Partnership. In addition, in October 2011, the CFTC adopted rules governing position limits on futures (and options on futures) on a number of agricultural, energy and metals commodities, as well as on swaps that perform a significant price discovery function with respect to those futures and options. In September 2012, the CFTC’s rules were vacated by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and remanded to the CFTC for further consideration. The CFTC proposed revised position limits rules late in 2013. The comment period for the rules closed in February 2014, and the CFTC subsequently reopened comment periods for comments about certain issues related to futures and options contracts on agricultural commodities only. The CFTC re-proposed revised position limits rules late in 2016, and the comment period for the rules closed in February 2017. It is possible that these rules may take effect in some form. If so, these rules could have an adverse effect on the Partnership’s trading.

The Partnership has Credit Risk to the Commodity Brokers. The Partnership has credit risk because the commodity brokers act as the futures commission merchants for futures transactions or the counterparties of OTC transactions, with respect to most of the Partnership’s assets. As such, in the event that the commodity brokers are unable to perform, the Partnership’s assets are at risk and, in such event, the Partnership may only recover a portion of its investment or nothing at all. Exchange-traded futures and futures-styled option contracts are marked to market on a daily basis, with variations in value credited or charged to the Partnership’s account on a daily basis. The commodity brokers, as futures commission merchants for the Partnership’s exchange-traded contracts, are required, pursuant to CFTC regulations, to segregate from their own assets, and for the sole benefit of their commodity customers, all funds held by them with respect to exchange-traded futures and futures-styled options contracts, including an amount equal to the net unrealized gain on all open futures and futures-styled options contracts. Similar requirements apply with respect to funds held in connection with cleared swap contracts. In the event of a shortfall in segregated customer funds held by the futures commission merchant, the Partnership’s assets on account with the futures commission merchant may be at risk in the event of the futures commission merchant’s bankruptcy or insolvency, and in such event, the Partnership may only recover a portion of the available customer funds. If no property is available for distribution, the Partnership would not recover any of its assets. With respect to the Partnership’s OTC foreign exchange contracts and uncleared swaps with MS&Co. prior to the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions, there was no requirement to segregate funds held with respect to such contracts. The CFTC and the prudential regulators that oversee swap dealers finalized rules regarding margin for uncleared swaps that imposed certain requirements beginning September 1, 2016 that may adversely impact the manner in which such swaps are traded and/or settled or increase the costs of such trades. Uncleared swaps will generally be subject to initial and variation margin requirements which may require the Partnership to post collateral to swap dealers and collect collateral from swap dealers. Any initial margin that may be required to be posted by a swap dealer or the Partnership must be segregated and held by an independent third party custodian and cannot be rehypothecated. Variation margin is not required to be segregated and may be rehypothecated. There may also be costs and delays involved in negotiating the custodial arrangement and related contractual terms.

Risks Relating to the Trading Advisor

Since the future performance of the Trading Advisor is unpredictable, the Trading Advisor’s past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Reliance on the Trading Advisor to Trade Successfully. The Trading Advisor is responsible for making all Futures Interests trading decisions on behalf of the Partnership. The General Partner has no control over the specific trades the Trading Advisor may make, leverage used, risks and/or concentrations assumed or whether the Trading Advisor will act in accordance with the disclosure documents or descriptive materials furnished by it to the General Partner. The General Partner can provide no assurance that the trading program employed by the Trading Advisor will be successful. The Trading Advisor, in turn, is dependent upon the services of a limited number of persons to develop and refine its trading approaches and strategies and execute the trading transactions. The loss of the services of any of the Trading Advisor’s principals or key employees, or the failure of those principals or key employees to function effectively as a team, may have an adverse effect on the Trading Advisor’s ability to manage its trading activities successfully, or may cause the Trading Advisor to cease operations entirely. This, in turn, could negatively affect the Partnership’s performance.

Market Factors May Adversely Influence the Trading Advisor’s Trading Program. In the past, there have been periods when market conditions have not been favorable to the Trading Advisor’s strategy, and such periods may recur. The past performance of such trading strategy is not necessarily indicative of its future profitability, and no trading program can consistently determine which commodity to trade or when to enter into the trade. Often, the most unprofitable market conditions for the Partnership are those in which prices “whipsaw,” that is, such price moves quickly upward (or downward), then reverses, then moves upward (or downward) again, then reverses again. In such conditions, the Trading Advisor may establish positions based on incorrectly identifying both the brief upward or downward price movements as trends, whereas in fact no trends sufficient to generate profits develop. Any factor which may lessen the prospect of favorable conditions in the future (such as lack of major price trends or increased governmental control of, or participation in, the markets) may reduce the Trading Advisor’s ability to trade profitably in the future.

Increasing the Assets Managed by the Trading Advisor May Adversely Affect Its Performance. The rates of return achieved by a commodity trading advisor often diminish as the assets under its management increase. This can occur for many reasons, including the inability of the trading advisor to execute larger position sizes at desired prices and because of the need to adjust the trading advisor’s trading program to avoid exceeding speculative position limits. These are limits established by the CFTC and the exchanges on the number of speculative futures and options contracts in a commodity that one trader may own or control. The Trading Advisor has not agreed to limit the amount of additional assets that it will manage.

The Trading Advisor May Terminate Its Advisory Agreement. The advisory agreement with the Trading Advisor automatically renew unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. In the event an advisory agreement is not renewed, the General Partner may not be able to enter into an arrangement with the Trading Advisor or another trading advisor on terms substantially similar to the previous advisory agreement.

Disadvantages of Replacing or Switching the Trading Advisor. The Trading Advisor is required to recoup previous trading losses before they can earn performance-based compensation. However, the General Partner may elect to replace the Trading Advisor if it has a “loss carry-forward.” In that case, the Partnership would lose the “free ride” of any potential recoupment of the prior losses. In addition, the new trading advisor(s) would earn performance-based compensation on the first dollars of investment profits. The effect of the replacement of, or the reallocation of assets away from, the Trading Advisor therefore could be significant.

Partnership Performance May Be Hindered by Increased Competition for Positions. Assets in managed futures have grown from an estimated $300 million in 1980 to approximately $347.0 billion as of December 31, 2017 (source: BarclayHedge, Ltd., Fairfield, IA). This has resulted in increased trading competition. Since futures are traded in an auction-like market, the more competition there is for some contracts, the more difficult it is for the Trading Advisor to obtain the best prices for the Partnership. The Trading Advisor is required to use an allocation methodology that is fair to all customers.

You Will Not be Aware of Changes to the Trading Advisor’s Trading Program. Because of the proprietary nature of the Trading Advisor’s trading program, you generally will not be advised if adjustments are made to the Trading Advisor’s trading program in order to accommodate additional assets under management or for any other reason.

You Will Not Have Access to the Partnership’s Positions and Must Rely on the General Partner to Monitor the Trading Advisor. As a limited partner, you will not have access to the Partnership’s trade positions. Consequently, you will not know whether the Trading Advisor is adhering to the Partnership’s trading policies and must rely on the ability of the General Partner to monitor trading and protect your investment.

Taxation Risks

Tax Laws Are Subject To Change at Any Time. Tax laws and court and IRS interpretations thereof are subject to change at any time, possibly with retroactive effect.

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law and is generally effective after December 31, 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes significant changes to the U.S. federal income tax rules for taxation of individuals and corporations, including, in the case of individuals, reducing the top federal income rate to 37%, creating special rules that reduce the taxation of certain qualified business income, and eliminating or limiting various deductions, including capping the deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000 per year. Most of the changes applicable to individuals are temporary and apply only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. For corporations, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduces the top corporate income tax rate to 21%.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes numerous other large and small changes to the federal income tax rules that may affect the Partnership’s investors and may directly or indirectly affect the Partnership. Moreover, the process of adopting extensive tax legislation in a short amount of time without hearings and substantial time for review is likely to have led to drafting errors, issues needing clarification, and unintended consequences that will have to be reviewed in subsequent tax legislation. At this point, it is not clear when Congress will address these issues or when the Internal Revenue Service will issue administrative guidance on the changes made in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Prospective investors are urged to consult with their tax advisors with respect to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and any other regulatory or administrative developments and proposals, and their potential effects on them based on their unique circumstances.

You May Have Tax Liability Attributable To Your Interest in the Partnership Even If You Have Received No Distributions and Redeemed No Units and Even if the Partnership Generated a Loss. If the Partnership has profit for a taxable year, the profit will be includible in your taxable income, whether or not cash or other property is actually distributed to you by the Partnership. The General Partner presently does not intend to make any distributions from the Partnership. Accordingly, it is anticipated that U.S. federal income taxes on your allocable share of the Partnership’s profits will exceed the amount of distributions to you, if any, for a taxable year, so that you must be prepared to fund any tax liability from redemptions of Units or other sources. In addition, the Partnership may have capital losses from trading activities that cannot be deducted against the Partnership’s ordinary income (e.g., interest income, periodic net swap payments) so that you may have to pay taxes on ordinary income even if the Partnership generates a net loss.

The Partnership’s Tax Returns Could be Audited. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) could audit the Partnership’s U.S. federal income tax returns. If an audit results in an adjustment to the Partnership’s tax return, limited partners in the Partnership could be required to file amended returns and pay additional tax. Pursuant to newly effective legislation, audits of the Partnership generally will be conducted at the Partnership level and any adjustment that results in additional tax (including interest and penalties thereon) will be assessed and collected at the Partnership level in the current taxable year, with the current partners indirectly bearing such cost, unless the Partnership makes an election to issue adjusted K-1s to those partners that were partners in the taxable year subject to audit. Therefore, unless the Partnership elects otherwise, the Partnership may be directly responsible in the current taxable year for the income tax liability resulting from an audit adjustment that relates to a prior taxable year in which a current limited partner did not own an interest in the Partnership or in which the limited partner’s ownership percentage has since changed. The full implications of these new rules are not yet known and limited partners should consult their tax advisers regarding the potential implications of this new audit regime.

You Will Recognize Short-Term Capital Gain. Profits on futures contracts traded in regulated U.S. and some foreign exchanges, foreign currency contracts traded in the interbank market, and U.S. and some foreign exchange-traded options on commodities are generally taxed as short-term capital gain to the extent of 40% of gains with respect to section 1256 contracts and at least 50% of the gain arising from a mixed straddle account and are currently taxed at a maximum marginal ordinary U.S. federal income tax rate of 37%.

The IRS Could Take the Position that Deductions for Certain Partnership Expenses Are Limited or Entirely Disallowed. As a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, deductions for “investment advisory expenses” of non-corporate taxpayers are disallowed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and beginning before January 1, 2026, and thereafter will be subject to certain limitations for U.S. federal income tax and alternative minimum tax purposes. The IRS could argue that certain Partnership expenses are investment advisory expenses. Prospective investors should discuss with their tax advisors the tax consequences of an investment in the Partnership.

Non-U.S. Investors May Face Exchange Rate Risk and Local Tax Consequences. Non-U.S. investors should note that Units are denominated in U.S. dollars and that changes in rates of exchange between currencies may cause the value of their investment to decrease or to increase. Non-U.S. investors should consult their own tax advisors concerning the applicable U.S. and foreign tax implications of this investment.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

The Partnership’s executive and administrative offices are located within the offices of the General Partner. The General Partner’s offices utilized by the Partnership are located at 522 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10036.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

This section describes the major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which MS&Co. or its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of their property is subject. There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Partnership or the General Partner.

On June 1, 2011, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated converted from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware limited liability company. As a result of that conversion, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated is now named Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”).

MS&Co. is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, a Delaware holding company. Morgan Stanley files periodic reports with the SEC as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), which include current descriptions of material litigation and material proceedings and investigations, if any, by governmental and/or regulatory agencies or self-regulatory organizations concerning Morgan Stanley and its subsidiaries, including MS&Co. As a consolidated subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, MS&Co. does not file its own periodic reports with the SEC that contain descriptions of material litigation, proceedings and investigations. As a result, we refer you to the “Legal Proceedings” section of Morgan Stanley’s SEC 10-K filings for 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013. In addition, MS&Co. annually prepares an Audited, Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition (“Audited Financial Statement”) that is publicly available on Morgan Stanley’s website at www.morganstanley.com. We refer you to the “Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies—Contingencies—Legal” section in MS&Co.’s 2017 Audited Financial Statement.

In addition to the matters described in those filings, in the normal course of business, each of Morgan Stanley and MS&Co. has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. Each of Morgan Stanley and MS&Co. is also involved, from time to time, in investigations and proceedings by governmental and/or regulatory agencies or self-regulatory organizations, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, fines or penalties. The number of these investigations and proceedings has increased in recent years with regard to many financial services institutions, including Morgan Stanley and MS&Co.

MS&Co. is a Delaware limited liability company with its main business office located at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York 10036. Among other registrations and memberships, MS&Co. is registered as a futures commission merchant and is a member of the National Futures Association.

Regulatory and Governmental Matters

On February 25, 2015, MS&Co. reached an agreement in principle with the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Civil Division (collectively, the “Civil Division”) to pay $2.6 billion to resolve certain claims that the Civil Division indicated it intended to bring against MS&Co. That settlement was finalized on February 10, 2016.

In October 2014, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office (“ILAG”) sent a letter to MS&Co. alleging that MS&Co. knowingly made misrepresentations related to RMBS purchased by certain pension funds affiliated with the State of Illinois and demanding that MS&Co. pay ILAG approximately $88 million. MS&Co. and ILAG reached an agreement to resolve the matter on February 10, 2016.

On January 13, 2015, the New York Attorney General’s Office (“NYAG”), which is also a member of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it intended to file a lawsuit related to approximately 30 subprime securitizations sponsored by MS&Co. NYAG indicated that the lawsuit would allege that MS&Co. misrepresented or omitted material information related to the due diligence, underwriting and valuation of the loans in the securitizations and the properties securing them and indicated that its lawsuit would be brought under the Martin Act. MS&Co. and NYAG reached an agreement to resolve the matter on February 10, 2016.

On June 5, 2012, MS&Co. consented to and became the subject of an Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions by The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to resolve allegations related to the failure of a salesperson to comply with exchange rules that prohibit off-exchange futures transactions unless there is an Exchange for Related Position (“EFRP”). Specifically, the CFTC found that from April 2008 through October 2009, MS&Co. violated Section 4c(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the “CEA”) and CFTC Regulation 1.38 by executing, processing and reporting numerous off-exchange futures trades to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”) as EFRPs in violation of CME and CBOT rules because those trades lacked the corresponding and related cash, OTC swap, OTC option, or other OTC derivative position. In addition, the CFTC found that MS&Co. violated CFTC Regulation 166.3 by failing to supervise the handling of the trades at issue and failing to have adequate policies and procedures designed to detect and deter the violations of the CEA and CFTC Regulations. Without admitting or denying the underlying allegations and without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, MS&Co. accepted and consented to entry of findings and the imposition of a cease and desist order, a fine of $5,000,000, and undertakings related to public statements, cooperation and payment of the fine. MS&Co. entered into corresponding and related settlements with the CME and CBOT in which the CME found that MS&Co. violated CME Rules 432.Q and 538 and fined MS&Co. $750,000 and CBOT found that MS&Co. violated CBOT Rules 432.Q and 538 and fined MS&Co. $1,000,000.

On July 23, 2014, the SEC approved a settlement by MS&Co. and certain affiliates to resolve an investigation related to certain subprime RMBS transactions sponsored and underwritten by those entities in 2007. Pursuant to the settlement, MS&Co. and certain affiliates were charged with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, agreed to pay disgorgement and penalties in an amount of $275 million and neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings.

On April 21, 2015, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) and the CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (“CFE”) filed statements of charges against MS&Co. in connection with trading by one of MS&Co.’s former traders of EEM options contracts that allegedly disrupted the final settlement price of the November 2012 VXEM futures. CBOE alleged that MS&Co. violated CBOE Rules 4.1, 4.2 and 4.7, Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. CFE alleged that MS&Co. violated CFE Rules 608, 609 and 620. The matters were resolved on June 28, 2016 without any findings of fraud.

On June 18, 2015, MS&Co. entered into a settlement with the SEC and paid a fine of $500,000 as part of the MCDC Initiative to resolve allegations that MS&Co. failed to form a reasonable basis through adequate due diligence for believing the truthfulness of the assertions by issuers and/or obligors regarding their compliance with previous continuing disclosure undertakings pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 in connection with offerings in which MS&Co. acted as senior or sole underwriter.

On August 6, 2015, MS&Co. consented to and became the subject of an order by the CFTC to resolve allegations that MS&Co. violated CFTC Regulation 22.9(a) by failing to hold sufficient US Dollars in cleared swap segregated accounts in the United States to meet all US Dollar obligations to cleared swaps customers. Specifically, the CFTC found that while MS&Co. at all times held sufficient funds in segregation to cover its obligations to its customers, on certain days during 2013 and 2014, it held currencies, such as euros, instead of US dollars, to meet its US dollar obligations. In addition, the CFTC found that MS&Co. violated CFTC Regulation 166.3 by failing to have in place adequate procedures to ensure that it complied with CFTC Regulation 22.9(a). Without admitting or denying the findings or conclusions and without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, MS&Co. accepted and consented to the entry of findings, the imposition of a cease and desist order, a civil monetary penalty of $300,000, and undertakings related to public statements, cooperation, and payment of the monetary penalty.

On December 20, 2016, MS&Co. consented to and became the subject of an order by the SEC in connection with allegations that MS&Co. willfully violated Sections 15(c)(3) and 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules 15c3-3(e), 17a-5(a), and 17a-5(d) thereunder, by inaccurately calculating its Reserve Account requirement under Rule 15c3-3 by including margin loans to an affiliate in its calculations, which resulted in making inaccurate records and submitting inaccurate reports to the SEC. Without admitting or denying the underlying allegations and without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, MS&Co. consented to a cease and desist order, a censure, and a civil monetary penalty of $7,500,000.

On September 28, 2017, the CFTC issued an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against MS&Co. regarding violations of CFTC Rule 166.3 by failing to diligently supervise the reconciliation of exchange and clearing fees with the amounts it ultimately charged customers for certain transactions on multiple exchanges. The order and settlement required MS&Co. to pay a $500,000 penalty and cease and desist from violating Rule 166.3.

On November 2, 2017, the CFTC issued an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against MS&Co. for non-compliance with applicable rules governing Part 17 Large Trader reports to the CFTC. The order requires MS&Co. to pay a $350,000 penalty and cease and desist from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Civil Litigation

On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank (“CDIB”) filed a complaint against MS&Co., styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., which is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (“Supreme Court of NY”). The complaint relates to a $275 million credit default swap referencing the super senior portion of the STACK 2006-1 CDO. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment and alleges that MS&Co. misrepresented the risks of the STACK 2006-1 CDO to CDIB, and that MS&Co. knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CDIB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CDIB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CDIB’s obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On February 28, 2011, the court denied MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss of up to approximately $240 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. A corrected amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2011, which alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint on May 27, 2011, which was denied on September 19, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. On January 28, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to an additional securitization at issue. After those dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $65 million. At December 25, 2017, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $38 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $38 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $385 million. The amended complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint were granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. On November 25, 2013, July 16, 2014, and May 19, 2015, respectively, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against MS&Co. with respect to three of the securitizations at issue. After these voluntary dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $332 million. On February 6, 2017, the action was remanded to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. At December 25, 2017, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue remaining in this action was approximately $46 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $46 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against MS&Co., certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $634 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 10, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 20, 2017 the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court’s June 10, 2014 order. On July 28, 2017, MS&Co. filed a motion for leave to appeal that decision to the New York Court of Appeals. On October 3, 2017, the Appellate Division, First Department denied MS&Co.’s motion for leave to appeal. At December 25, 2017, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $215 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $88 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $215 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses.

On May 17, 2013, plaintiff in IKB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $133 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 29, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $116 million. On August 11, 2016, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court’s decision denying in part MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. At December 25, 2017, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $24 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of $58 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $24 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 1, 2016, the California Attorney General’s Office filed an action against MS&Co. in California state court styled California v. Morgan Stanley, et al., on behalf of California investors, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California Teachers’ Retirement System. The complaint alleges that MS&Co. made misrepresentations and omissions regarding residential mortgage-backed securities and notes issued by the Cheyne SIV, and asserts violations of the California False Claims Act and other state laws and seeks treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. On September 30, 2016, the court granted MS&Co.’s demurrer, with leave to replead. On October 21, 2016, the California Attorney General filed an amended complaint. On January 25, 2017, the court denied MS&Co.’s demurrer with respect to the amended complaint.

Settled Civil Litigation

On August 25, 2008, MS&Co. and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the “Cheyne SIV”). The case was styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne SIV. The plaintiffs asserted allegations of aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately $852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. On April 24, 2013, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case, and on April 26, 2013, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.

On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against MS&Co. and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On January 23, 2017, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California styled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. An amended complaint filed on June 10, 2010 alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $704 million. The complaint raised claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and sought, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On January 26, 2015, as a result of a settlement with certain other defendants, the plaintiff requested and the court subsequently entered a dismissal with prejudice of certain of the plaintiff’s claims, including all remaining claims against MS&Co.

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California styled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al. An amended complaint, filed on June 10, 2010, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $276 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On December 21, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On July 9, 2010 and February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed two separate complaints against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaints asserted claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiff’s affiliates and allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. and/or its affiliates or sold to plaintiff’s affiliates’ clients by MS&Co. and/or its affiliates in the two matters was approximately $263 million. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.

On October 25, 2010, MS&Co., certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”), were named as defendants in a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. On January 31, 2014, the plaintiffs in the action, which related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, filed a second amended complaint, which asserted common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation, which received final court approval on July 2, 2015.

On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against MS&Co. in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011, and alleges that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued and/or sold to the plaintiffs by MS&Co. was approximately $104 million. The complaint raised common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or recessionary damages associated with the plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, styled Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on April 2, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of the certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs by MS&Co. was approximately $153 million. On June 8, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including MS&Co. and certain affiliates. A complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raised claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On February 7, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.

On April 25, 2012, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain affiliates filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 2012, and alleges that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten, and/or sold by MS&Co. was approximately $758 million. The amended complaint raised common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory, and/or rescissionary damages, as well as punitive damages, associated with the plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On April 11, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, styled The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. was approximately $1.073 billion. The amended complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, equitable fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the New Jersey RICO statute, and includes a claim for treble damages. On January 8, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a putative class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On December 18, 2014, the parties’ agreement to settle the litigation received final court approval, and on December 19, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the action.

On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against MS&Co. in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that MS&Co. made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. On July 2, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. On July 28, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation, and on August 12, 2015, the plaintiff filed a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the SDNY. The complaint alleged that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to the plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiffs in the matter was approximately $417 million. The complaint alleged violations of federal and various state securities laws and sought, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. On November 23, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter.

On September 16, 2014, the Virginia Attorney General’s Office filed a civil lawsuit, styled Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Integra REC LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al., against MS&Co. and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond related to RMBS. The lawsuit alleged that MS&Co. and the other defendants knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions related to the loans backing RMBS purchased by the Virginia Retirement System. The complaint asserts claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as well as common law claims of actual and constructive fraud, and seeks, among other things, treble damages and civil penalties. On January 6, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation. An order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered on January 28, 2016.

Additional lawsuits containing claims similar to those described above may be filed in the future. In the course of its business, MS&Co., as a major futures commission merchant, is party to various civil actions, claims and routine regulatory investigations and proceedings that the General Partner believes do not have a material effect on the business of MS&Co. MS&Co. may establish reserves from time to time in connection with such actions.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

(a)

Market Information. The Partnership has issued no stock. There is no public market for the Units.

(b)

Holders. The number of holders of Units at February 28, 2018 was approximately 1,839.

(c)

Distributions. No distributions have been made by the Partnership since it commenced trading operations on November 2, 1994. Ceres has sole discretion to decide what distributions, if any, shall be made to investors in the Partnership. Ceres does not intend to declare distributions in the foreseeable future.

(d)

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans. None.

(e)

Performance Graph. Not applicable.

(f)

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities; Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities. There were no additional subscriptions of Units in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. The Partnership no longer offers Units for sale.

(g)

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers.

The following chart sets forth the purchases of Units by the Partnership.


Period	(a) Total Number of Units Purchased *		(b) Average Price Paid per Unit **		(c) Total Number of Units Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs	(d) Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Units that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
October 1, 2017 - October 31, 2017		27,453.191	$	10.02	N/A	N/A
November 1, 2017 - November 30, 2017		43,276.205	$	10.07	N/A	N/A
December 1, 2017 - December 31, 2017		62,637.447	$	10.13	N/A	N/A
		133,366.843	$	10.09

Generally, limited partners are permitted to redeem their Units as of the end of each month if notice is received by the General Partner no later than 3:00 P.M., New York City time, on the last day of the month in which the redemption is to be effective. Under certain circumstances, the General Partner can compel redemption, although to date, the General Partner has not exercised this right. Purchases of Units by the Partnership reflected in the chart above were made in the ordinary course of the Partnership’s business in connection with effecting redemptions for limited partners.

Redemptions of Units are effected as of the last day of each month at the net asset value per Unit as of that day. No fee will be charged for redemptions.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Interest income, total expenses, total trading results, net income (loss) and net income (loss) per Unit for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013 and net asset value per Unit and total assets at December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013 were as follows:


	2017			2016			2015			2014			2013
Interest income	$	79,179		$	20,400		$	3,118		$	7,178		$	28,668
Total expenses		(662,683	)		(1,102,611	)		(1,384,296	)		(2,479,183	)		(5,608,992	)
Total trading results		(558,444	)		20,293			(3,760,506	)		3,176,271			2,879,322

Net income (loss)	$	(1,141,948	)	$	(1,061,918	)	$	(5,141,684	)	$	704,266		$	(2,701,002	)

Net income (loss) per Unit	$	(0.79	)	$	(0.62	)	$	(2.08	)	$	(0.02	)	$	(0.61	)

Net asset value per Unit	$	10.13		$	10.92		$	11.54		$	13.62		$	13.64

Total assets	$	10,922,485		$	17,078,611		$	25,261,173		$	37,031,206		$	54,495,997

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

Liquidity. The Partnership deposits its assets with MS&Co. as clearing commodity broker in separate Futures Interests trading accounts established for the Trading Advisor. Such assets are used as margin to engage in trading and may be used as margin solely for the Partnership’s trading. The assets are held either in non-interest bearing bank accounts or in securities and instruments permitted by the CFTC for investment of customer segregated or secured funds. Since the Partnership’s sole purpose is to trade Futures Interests, it is expected that the Partnership will continue to own such liquid assets for margin purposes.

The Partnership’s investment in Futures Interests may, from time to time, be illiquid. Most U.S. futures exchanges limit fluctuations in prices during a single trading day by regulations referred to as “daily price fluctuation limits” or “daily limits.” Trades may not be executed at prices beyond the daily limit. If the price for a particular futures or option contract has increased or decreased by an amount equal to the daily limit, positions in that futures or option contract can neither be taken nor liquidated unless traders are willing to effect trades at or within the limit. Futures prices have occasionally moved the daily limit for several consecutive days with little or no trading. These market conditions could prevent the Partnership from promptly liquidating its futures or option contracts and result in restrictions on redemptions.

There is no limitation on daily price movements in trading forward contracts on foreign currencies. The markets for some world currencies have low trading volume and are illiquid, which may prevent the Partnership from trading in potentially profitable markets or prevent the Partnership from promptly liquidating unfavorable positions in such markets, subjecting it to substantial losses. Either of these market conditions could result in restrictions on redemptions. For the periods covered by this report, illiquidity has not materially affected the Partnership’s assets.

Other than the risk inherent in commodity futures, forward, options, swaps and other derivatives trading and U.S. treasury bills and money market mutual fund securities, the Partnership knows of no trends, demands, commitments, events, or uncertainties at the present time that are reasonably likely to result in the Partnership’s liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way.

Capital Resources. The Partnership does not have, nor does it expect to have, any capital assets. The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services. The Partnership’s only assets are its (i) investment in the Fund(s), (ii) interest receivable and (iii) cash at bank. Redemptions of Units in the future will affect the amount of funds available for investments in Futures Interests in subsequent periods. It is not possible to estimate the amount, and therefore the impact, of future outflows of Units.

Other than as discussed above, there are no known material trends, favorable or unfavorable, that would affect, nor any expected material changes to, the Partnership’s capital resource arrangements at the present time.

Results of Operations

General. The Partnership’s results depend on the Trading Advisor and the ability of the Trading Advisor’s trading program to take advantage of price movements in the futures, forwards and options markets.

Aventis trades its Aventis Diversified Commodity Strategy (formerly, the Barbarian Program) on behalf of the Partnership. The Aventis Diversified Commodity Strategy is based on an ensemble of three discretionary subprograms: spreads, flat price directional, and options trading. This type of trading is based primarily on the fundamentals of the market (i.e., changes in supply or demand of a commodity). It will also include supply and demand of the pit (i.e., discovery of over bought and over sold conditions).

Prior to its termination on December 31, 2017, PGR traded its PGR Mayfair Investment Program (formerly, the PGR Mayfair Program) on behalf of the Partnership. PGR’s futures investment program sought to profit over the medium term by exploiting inefficiencies in futures and forward markets across a broad range of asset classes and geographic regions. Proprietary models developed by the founding partners were implemented in an in-house trading system which systematically processed real-time data and executed trades automatically on electronic future exchanges and foreign exchange trading platforms.

Prior to its termination on January 31, 2016, Blenheim traded its Global Markets Strategy — Futures/FX on behalf of the Partnership. The objective of the Global Markets Strategy was to capture substantial profits through the establishment of risk controlled, strategic investment positions in markets where Blenheim had identified an unsustainable level of market disequilibrium that had not been reflected in the current market price. The essence of Blenheim’s trading approach was its ability to use discretion in formulating the most effective mix of trading methodologies, investment vehicles, and markets to maintain performance objectives. As trading opportunities were identified, Blenheim analyzed potential trading applications in order to achieve maximum capital appreciation with prudent risk management procedures.

The following chart sets forth the percentage and the amount of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to each Trading Advisor for the periods ended December 31, 2017 and September 30, 2017, respectively, and the change during the applicable period.


Trading Advisor	Allocation as of December 31, 2017 (%)		Allocation as of September 30, 2017 (%)		Allocation as of December 31, 2017 ($)		Allocation as of September 30, 2017 ($)		Change during the period (%)

PGR		0.00 %		29.69 %	$	-	$	3,372,550		(100.00)	%
Aventis		100.00		70.31		10,241,254		7,985,513		28.25

The following presents a summary of the Partnership’s operations for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2017, and a general discussion of its trading activities during each period. It is important to note, however, that the Trading Advisor trades in various markets at different times and that prior activity in a particular market does not mean that such market will be actively traded by the Trading Advisor or will be profitable in the future. Consequently, the results of operations of the Partnership are difficult to discuss other than in the context of the Partnership’s trading activities during the period in question. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The Partnership’s results of operations set forth in the financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), which requires the use of certain accounting policies that affect the amounts reported in these financial statements, including the following: the contracts the Funds trade are accounted for on a trade-date basis and marked to market on a daily basis. The difference between their original contract value and market value is recorded in the Funds’ Statements of Income and Expenses as “Net change in unrealized gains (losses) on open contracts” and recorded as “Net realized gains (losses) on closed contracts” when open positions are closed out. The sum of these amounts constitutes the Funds’ trading results. The market value of a futures contract is the settlement price on the exchange on which that futures contract is traded on a particular day. The fair value of a foreign currency forward contract is extrapolated on a forward basis from the spot prices quoted as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.), the close of the business day. Interest income, as well as management fees, General Partner fees, ongoing placement agent fees, incentive fees and brokerage fees, as applicable, are recorded on an accrual basis.

The General Partner believes that, based on the nature of the operations of the Partnership, no assumptions relating to the application of critical accounting policies other than those presently used could reasonably affect reported amounts.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, the net asset value per Unit decreased 7.2% from $10.92 to $10.13. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the net asset value per Unit decreased 5.4% from $11.54 to $10.92. For the year ended December 31, 2015, the net asset value per Unit decreased 15.3% from $13.62 to $11.54.

The Partnership experienced a net trading loss of $558,444 before fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017. Losses were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of Futures Interests in energy, currencies, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, grains and metals, and were partially offset by gains in indices, livestock and softs. The net trading gain (or loss) realized from the Partnership is disclosed under “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

During the first quarter, the most significant losses were incurred within the energy markets during January and February from long positions in natural gas futures as prices decreased amid limited demand due to milder-than-normal temperatures in North America. Within the currency sector, losses were recorded during January from short positions in the euro and Australian dollar versus the U.S. dollar as the relative value of the U.S. dollar moved lower amid increased uncertainty of future U.S. fiscal policy and warnings on the negative effect protectionist policies could have on the U.S. dollar. Within the global interest rate sector, losses were recorded throughout the first quarter from short positions in U.S. fixed income futures as prices advanced. The Partnership’s losses for the first quarter were partially offset by gains experienced within the global stock index sector, primarily during February and March, from long positions in U.S. and European equity index futures as prices rallied amid renewed bullishness about President Donald Trump’s policies, in particular those relating to tax reform and the impact they may have on economic growth.

During the second quarter, the most meaningful losses were incurred within the energy markets during June from long and short futures positions in oil related products as prices whipsawed as investors considered the impact of declining U.S. rig counts, while global market supply remained in a surplus. Within the metals sector, losses were incurred during May from short positions in gold and silver futures as prices rallied during the latter half of the month as a weakening U.S. dollar spurred demand for precious metals. Within the global interest rate sector, losses were incurred primarily during the last week of June from long European fixed income futures positions as prices reversed lower following comments by Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank (“ECB”), expressing optimism on Eurozone inflation, which triggered a rebound in government bond yields. The Partnership’s losses for the second quarter were partially offset by gains experienced within the global stock index sector during April and May from long positions in European, U.S., and Asian equity index futures as prices were buoyed by increased consumer confidence. Further gains were recorded in agriculturals from positions in cocoa and wheat.

During the third quarter, the most significant gains were experienced within the agricultural sector during July from long positions in soybean futures as drought conditions in portions of the U.S. Midwest threatened crops, pushing prices higher. Further gains were experienced from long futures positions in coffee and cocoa as prices rallied amid reports of poor crop qualities in Brazil and West Africa. Smaller profits were recorded in global stock index and currency trading during the third quarter. A portion of the Partnership’s gains during the third quarter was offset by losses within the global interest rate sector, primarily during September, from long positions in U.S. and British fixed income futures as the global bond market experienced a sell-off. Smaller losses were incurred from trading natural gas and gold.

During the fourth quarter, the Partnership recorded gains within the global stock index sector during October, November, and December as equity prices were boosted throughout the quarter following hawkish comments from several of the world’s largest central banks, strong consumer data, and positive economic sentiment globally. Additional gains were recorded in energies during the fourth quarter from long positions in crude oil and its related products as prices advanced amid speculation OPEC will continue curbing output. Smaller gains for the quarter were recorded in the agricultural and metals sectors. A portion of the Partnership’s gains during the fourth quarter was offset by losses within the currency sector, primarily during October, from positions in the euro, Canadian dollar, British pound, and Australian dollar. Smaller losses were incurred from trading Canadian bond futures during October.

The Partnership experienced a net trading gain of $20,293 before fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016. Gains were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of Futures Interests in energy, currencies, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates and indices and were partially offset by losses in grains, livestock, metals and softs.

The most significant losses were incurred in the metals sector during November from short positions in copper futures as prices moved higher amid speculation of increased global demand for industrial metals spurred by government fiscal policy. Additional losses were incurred from short positions in copper during September as prices rose after Chinese reports fueled speculation that demand for copper was increasing, while stockpiles decreased. Within the agricultural sector, losses were incurred during January from long positions in cocoa futures as prices tumbled as funds cut bets on higher prices and signs emerged that the crop in Ghana, the second-biggest cocoa producer, was recovering from a five-year low. Additional losses were incurred during July from long positions in soybean futures as prices were weighed down by mounting anticipation that growers were going to collect a record crop in 2016. The Partnership’s trading losses for the year were partially offset by trading gains within global interest rate sector, primarily during June, from long positions in European fixed income futures as prices advanced as uncertainty surrounding the economic and political fallout following the U.K.’s vote in late June to leave the European Union increased demand for the relative “safety” of government debt. Within the currency sector, gains were experienced during June from long positions in the Japanese yen versus the U.S. dollar as the relative value of the yen, which has long been considered a “safe haven” investment in times of market apprehension, rallied after the U.K. decided to leave the European Union. Additional gains were experienced during October from short positions in the British pound versus the U.S. dollar as the relative value of the pound continued to weaken due to concerns regarding the political and economic implications of the U.K. referendum to leave the European Union. Within the energy sector, gains were recorded during January from short futures positions in crude oil and its related products as prices plunged as turmoil in Chinese markets and an expected increase in Iranian crude exports added to concerns that a global supply glut may continue.

The Partnership experienced a net trading loss of $3,760,506 before fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015. Losses were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of Futures Interests in U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, livestock, metals and indices and were partially offset by gains in currencies, energy, grains and softs.

The most significant losses were incurred in the metals markets during March from long positions in palladium futures as prices fell dramatically on weakening demand from China and a strengthening U.S. dollar. Additional losses during March were experienced from long positions in nickel and tin futures as prices declined amid concern of slowing industrial demand from China. Further losses in this sector were recorded during February from long positions in nickel futures as prices declined as data showed the metal’s global oversupply widened, as well as during May and June from long positions in zinc, lead, and tin futures as Greece’s debt crisis undermined confidence in the global growth outlook and threatened commodities demand. Within the global stock index sector, losses were incurred throughout most of the second half of the year from long positions in U.S., Pacific Rim, and European equity index futures as prices declined amid continuing concerns that China’s slowdown will weigh on the global economy. Within the global interest rate sector, losses were incurred during the second quarter from long positions in European fixed income futures, specifically German bunds, as prices extended a decline as European leaders and the head of the International Monetary Fund agreed to step up the intensity of talks over Greece’s financial fate. Additional fixed income losses were incurred during the fourth quarter from long positions in European fixed income futures after prices reversed sharply lower as ECB president Mario Draghi disappointed markets early in December with an underwhelming ECB stimulus announcement. The Partnership’s trading losses during the year were partially offset by trading gains within the energy markets, primarily during November and December, from short positions in crude oil futures as prices continued to decline as U.S. crude supplies rose and OPEC production increased, signaling the global supply glut will persist. Within the agricultural sector, gains were experienced primarily during February from long positions in cocoa futures as prices advanced amid speculation of reduced supply following periods of drought and disease in the Ivory Coast and Ghana, the world’s top cocoa growing regions. Within the currency sector, gains were experienced primarily during March from short positions in the Brazilian real versus the U.S. dollar as the relative value of the real dropped on concern a stalled Brazilian economy and fiscal weakness could lead to a sovereign debt downgrade. Additional currency gains were recorded from positions in the Canadian dollar and euro throughout the year.

For an analysis of unrealized gains and losses by contract type and a further description of 2017 trading results, refer to the Partnership’s Annual Report to Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2017, which is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 13.01 of this Form 10-K.

The Partnership’s gains and losses are allocated among its partners for income tax purposes.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations

The Partnership does not have any off-balance sheet arrangements, nor does it have contractual obligations or commercial commitments to make future payments, that would affect its liquidity or capital resources.

Market Risk

The Partnership is a party to financial instruments with elements of off-balance sheet market and credit risk. The Partnership trades futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts and forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products. In entering into these contracts, the Partnership is subject to the market risk that such contracts may be significantly influenced by market conditions, such as interest rate volatility, resulting in such contracts being less valuable. If the markets should move against all of the positions held by the Partnership at the same time, and the Trading Advisor was unable to offset positions of the Partnership, the Partnership could lose all of its assets and the limited partners would realize a loss equal to 100% of their capital accounts.

In addition to the Trading Advisor’s internal controls, the Trading Advisor must comply with the Partnership’s trading policies that include standards for liquidity and leverage that must be maintained. The Trading Advisor and Ceres monitor the Partnership’s trading activities to ensure compliance with the trading policies and Ceres can require the Trading Advisor to modify positions of the Partnership if Ceres believes they violate the Partnership’s trading policies.

Credit Risk

In addition to market risk, in entering into Futures Interests, there is a credit risk to the Partnership that the counterparty on a contract will not be able to meet its obligations to the Partnership. The ultimate counterparty or guarantor of the Partnership for futures, forward and options contracts traded in the United States, and most foreign exchanges on which the Partnership trades, is the clearinghouse associated with such exchange. In general, a clearinghouse is backed by the membership of the exchange and will act in the event of non-performance by one of its members or one of its member’s customers, which should significantly reduce this credit risk. There is no assurance that a clearinghouse, exchange, or other exchange member will meet its obligations to the Partnership, and Ceres and the commodity brokers will not indemnify the Partnership against a default by such parties. Further, the law is unclear as to whether a commodity broker has any obligation to protect its customers from loss in the event of an exchange or clearinghouse defaulting on trades effected for the broker’s customers. In cases where the Partnership trades off-exchange forward contracts with a counterparty, the sole recourse of the Partnership will be the forward contract’s counterparty.

Ceres deals with these credit risks of the Partnership in several ways. First, Ceres monitors the Partnership’s credit exposure to each exchange on a daily basis. The commodity brokers inform the Partnership, as with all of their customers, of the Partnership’s net margin requirements for all of its existing open positions, and Ceres has installed a system which permits it to monitor the Partnership’s potential net credit exposure, exchange by exchange, by adding the unrealized trading gains on each exchange, if any, to the Partnership’s margin liability thereon.

Second, the Partnership’s trading policies limit the amount of its net assets that can be committed at any given time to futures contracts and require a minimum amount of diversification in the Partnership’s trading, usually over several different products and exchanges. Historically, the Partnership’s exposure to any one exchange has typically amounted to only a small percentage of its total net assets and, on those relatively few occasions where the Partnership’s credit exposure climbs above such level, Ceres deals with the situation on a case by case basis, carefully weighing whether the increased level of credit exposure remains appropriate. Material changes to the trading policies may be made only with the prior written approval of the limited partners owning more than 50% of Units then outstanding.

Third, with respect to Futures Interests trading, the Partnership trades with only those counterparties which Ceres, together with MS&Co., has determined to be creditworthy. The Partnership presently deals with MS&Co., as the sole counterparty on all trading of foreign currency forward contracts and foreign currency forward contracts.

For additional information, see Note 5, “Financial Instruments” under “Notes to Financial Statements” in the Partnership’s Annual Report to Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2017, which is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 13.01 of this Form 10-K.

Inflation has not been a major factor in the Partnership’s operations.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the General Partner to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. As a result, actual results could differ from these estimates. A summary of the Partnership’s significant accounting policies is described in Note 2 to the Partnership’s financial statements included in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

The Partnership’s most significant accounting policy is the valuation of its investments in Futures Interests and U.S. Treasury bills, as applicable. The fair value of Futures Interests is determined by the various exchanges, and reflects the settlement price for each contract as of the close of business on the last business day of the reporting period. The fair value of foreign currency forward contracts is extrapolated on a forward basis from the spot prices quoted as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.) on the last business day of the reporting period from various exchanges. The fair value of non-exchange-traded foreign currency option contracts is calculated by applying an industry standard model application for options valuation of foreign currency options, using as inputs the spot prices, interest rates, and option implied volatilities quoted as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.) on the last business day of the reporting period. U.S. Treasury bills are valued at the last available bid price received from independent pricing services as of the close of the last business day of the reporting period.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

The Partnership is a commodity pool engaged primarily in the speculative trading of Futures Interests. The market-sensitive instruments held by the Partnership are acquired for speculative trading purposes only and, as a result, all or substantially all of the Partnership’s assets are at risk of trading loss. Unlike an operating company, the risk of market-sensitive instruments is inherent to the primary business activity of the Partnership.

The Futures Interests traded by the Partnership involve varying degrees of related market risk. Market risk is often dependent upon changes in the level or volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, and prices of financial instruments and commodities, factors that result in frequent changes in the fair value of the Partnership’s open positions, and consequently in its earnings, whether realized or unrealized, and cash flow. Gains and losses on open positions of exchange-traded Futures Interests are settled daily through variation margin. Gains and losses on non-exchange-traded Futures Interests are settled upon termination of the contract. Gains and losses on non-exchange-traded forward currency option contracts are settled on an agreed-upon settlement date.

The Partnership’s total market risk may increase or decrease as it is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the diversification among the Partnership’s open positions, the volatility present within the markets, and the liquidity of the markets.

The face value of the market sector instruments held by the Partnership is typically many times the applicable margin requirements. Margin requirements generally range between 2% and 15% of contract face value. Additionally, the use of leverage causes the face value of the market sector instruments held by the Partnership typically to be many times the total capitalization of the Partnership.

The Partnership’s past performance is no guarantee of its future results. Any attempt to numerically quantify the Partnership’s market risk is limited by the uncertainty of its speculative trading. The Partnership’s speculative trading and use of leverage may cause future losses and volatility (i.e., “risk of ruin”) that far exceed the Partnership’s experience to date as discussed under the “Partnership’s Value at Risk in Different Market Sectors” section and significantly exceed the Value at Risk tables disclosed.

Limited partners will not be liable for losses exceeding the current net asset value of their investment.

Quantifying the Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk

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 of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (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 accounts for open positions on the basis of fair value accounting principles. Any loss in the market value of the Partnership’s open positions is directly reflected in the Partnership’s earnings and cash flow.

The Partnership’s risk exposure in the market sectors traded by the Trading Advisor is estimated below in terms of Value at Risk. Please note that the Value at Risk model is used to numerically quantify market risk for historic reporting purposes only and is not utilized by either Ceres or the Trading Advisor in their daily risk management activities.

Value at Risk is a measure of the maximum amount which the Partnership could reasonably be expected to lose in a given market sector. However, the inherent uncertainty of the Partnership’s speculative trading and the recurrence of market movements far exceeding expectations in the markets traded by the Partnership could result in actual trading or non-trading losses far beyond the indicated Value at Risk or the Partnership’s experience to date (i.e., “risk of ruin”). In light of the foregoing, as well as the risks and uncertainties intrinsic to all future projections, the inclusion of the quantification in this section should not be considered to constitute any assurance or representation that the Partnership’s losses in any market sector will be limited to Value at Risk or by the Partnership’s attempts to manage its market risk.

Exchange 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 losses reasonably expected to be incurred in the fair value of any given contract in 95%-99% of any one-day interval. The margin levels are established by dealers and exchanges using historical price studies as well as an assessment of current market volatility (including the implied volatility of the options on a given futures contract) and economic fundamentals to provide a probabilistic estimate of the maximum expected near-term one-day price fluctuation.

The Partnership’s Value at Risk in Different Market Sectors

The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 and the highest, lowest and average values during the twelve months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. All open position trading risk exposures of the Partnership have been included in calculating the figures set forth below. There has been no material change in the trading Value at Risk information previously disclosed in the Form 10-K.

As of December 31, 2017, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $10,241,254.


						Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2017
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Commodity	$	62,866		0.61	%	$	950,365	$	60,958	$	487,360

Total	$	62,866		0.61	%

* Average of daily Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2016, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $15,828,641.


						Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2016
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Commodity	$	525,894		3.32	%	$	1,261,778	$	326,930	$	746,889
Equity		485,627		3.07			703,687		113,612		322,799
Currencies		318,321		2.01			593,552		81,651		267,604
Interest rates		300,948		1.90			609,646		62,001		288,691

Total	$	1,630,790		10.30	%

* Average of daily Values at Risk.

Limitations on Value at Risk as an Assessment of Market Risk

Value at Risk models permit estimation of a portfolio’s aggregate market risk exposure, incorporating a range of varied market risks, reflect risk reduction due to portfolio diversification or hedging activities, and can cover a wide range of portfolio assets. However, Value at Risk measures should be viewed in light of the methodology’s limitations, which include, but may not be limited to, the following:

past changes in market risk factors will not always result in accurate predictions of the distributions and correlations of future market movements;

changes in portfolio value caused by market movements may differ from those of the Value at Risk model;

Value at Risk results reflect past market fluctuations applied to current trading positions while future risk depends on future positions;

Value at Risk using a one-day time horizon does not fully capture the market risk of positions that cannot be liquidated or hedged within one day; and

the historical market risk factor data used for Value at Risk estimation may provide only limited insight into losses that could be incurred under certain unusual market movements.

Non-Trading Risk

The Partnership has non-trading market risk on its foreign cash balances not needed for margin. These balances and any market risk they may represent are immaterial.

A decline in short-term interest rates would result in a decline in the Partnership’s cash management income. This cash flow risk is not considered to be material.

Materiality, as used throughout this section, is based on an assessment of reasonably possible market movements and any associated potential losses, taking into account the leverage, optionality and multiplier features of the Partnership’s market-sensitive instruments, in relation to the Partnership’s net assets.

Qualitative Disclosure Regarding Primary Trading Risk Exposures

The following qualitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures – except for (i) those disclosures that are statements of historical fact and (ii) the descriptions of how the Partnership manages its primary market risk exposures – constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. The Partnership’s primary market risk exposures, as well as the strategies used and to be used by Ceres and the Trading Advisor for managing such exposures, are subject to numerous uncertainties, contingencies and risks, any one of which could cause the actual results of the Partnership’s risk controls to differ materially from the objectives of such strategies. Government interventions, defaults and expropriations, illiquid markets, the emergence of dominant fundamental factors, political upheavals, changes in historical price relationships, an influx of new market participants, increased regulation and many other factors could result in material losses, as well as in material changes to the risk exposures and the risk management strategies of the Partnership. Investors must be prepared to lose all or substantially all of their investment in the Partnership.

The Trading Advisor, in general, tends to utilize trading system(s) to take positions when market opportunities develop, and Ceres anticipates that the Trading Advisor will continue to do so.

The following were the primary trading risk exposures of the Partnership at December 31, 2017 by market sector. It may be anticipated, however, that these market exposures will vary materially over time.

Commodities

Grains. The Partnership’s trading risk exposure in the grains is primarily to agricultural price movements, which are often directly affected by severe or unexpected weather conditions. Wheat accounted for the majority of the Partnership’s grain exposure as of December 31, 2017.

Softs. The Partnership’s trading risk exposure in soft commodities is primarily to agricultural-related price movements, which are often directly affected by severe or unexpected weather conditions. Cocoa accounted for the majority of the Partnership’s soft commodities exposure as of December 31, 2017.

Energy. The Partnership’s primary energy market exposure is to oil and natural gas price movements, often resulting from political developments in the Middle East and weather conditions. Energy prices can be volatile and substantial profits and losses, which have been experienced in the past, are expected to continue to be experienced in these markets in the future.

Livestock. The Partnership’s primary risk exposure in livestock is to fluctuations in hog prices.

The following was the only non-trading risk exposure of the Partnership as of December 31, 2017.

Foreign Currency Balances. The Partnership may hold various foreign currency balances. The Trading Advisor regularly converts foreign currency balances to U.S. dollars in an attempt to control the Partnership’s non-trading risk.

Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Means of Managing Risk Exposure

The Partnership and the Trading Advisor, separately, attempt to manage the risk of the Partnership’s open positions in essentially the same manner in all market categories traded. Ceres attempts to manage market exposure by diversifying the Partnership’s assets among different market sectors and trading approaches through the selection of a commodity trading advisor and by daily monitoring its performance. In addition, the Trading Advisor establishes diversification guidelines, often set in terms of the maximum margin to be committed to positions in any one market sector or market-sensitive instrument.

Ceres monitors and controls the risk of the Partnership’s non-trading instrument, cash. Cash is the only Partnership investment directed by Ceres, rather than the Trading Advisor.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

The Financial Statements are incorporated by reference to the Partnership’s December 31, 2017 Annual Report, which is filed as Exhibit 13.01 hereto.

Supplementary data specified by Item 302 of Regulation S-K:

Summary of Quarterly Results (Unaudited)


	For the period from October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017			For the period from July 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017			For the period from April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017			For the period from January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017
Interest income	$	23,487		$	22,377		$	18,908		$	14,407
Total expenses		(143,975	)		(152,966	)		(171,191	)		(194,551	)
Total trading results		349,069			290,532			(592,270	)		(605,775	)

Net income (loss)	$	228,581		$	159,943		$	(744,553	)	$	(785,919	)

Net income (loss) per Unit	$	0.21		$	0.13		$	(0.58	)	$	(0.55	)


	For the period from October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016			For the period from July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016			For the period from April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016			For the period from January 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016
Interest income	$	5,933		$	5,560		$	4,250		$	4,657
Total expenses		(229,874	)		(280,236	)		(284,880	)		(307,621	)
Total trading results		(903,652	)		(760,225	)		1,390,418			293,752

Net income (loss)	$	(1,127,593	)	$	(1,034,901	)	$	1,109,788		$	(9,212	)

Net income (loss) per Unit	$	(0.65	)	$	(0.55	)	$	0.59		$	(0.01	)

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

Not applicable.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

The Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Partnership on the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods expected in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Partnership in the reports it files is accumulated and communicated to management, including the President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the General Partner, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure and appropriate SEC filings.

The General Partner is responsible for ensuring that there is an adequate and effective process for establishing, maintaining and evaluating disclosure controls and procedures for the Partnership’s external disclosures.

The General Partner’s President and CFO have evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2017 and, based on that evaluation, the General Partner’s President and CFO have concluded that at that date the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

The Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting is a process under the supervision of the General Partner’s President and CFO to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. These controls include policies and procedures that:

•

pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Partnership;

•

provide reasonable assurance that (i) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and (ii) the Partnership’s receipts are handled and expenditures are made only pursuant to authorizations of the General Partner; and

•

provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection and correction of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Partnership’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2017, filed as Exhibit 13.01 hereto, includes the General Partner’s report on internal control over financial reporting (“Management’s Report”).

There were no changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting during the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2017, that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

The Partnership has no directors or executive officers and its affairs are managed by its General Partner. Investment decisions are made by the Trading Advisor.

The directors and executive officers of the General Partner are Patrick T. Egan (President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Partner), Steven Ross (Chief Financial Officer and Director), Maureen O’Toole (Director), M. Paul Martin (Director), Feta Zabeli (Director) and Matthew R. Graver (Director). Each director holds office until the earlier of his or her death, resignation or removal. Vacancies on the board of directors may be filled by either (i) the majority vote of the remaining directors or (ii) MSD Holdings, as the sole member of the General Partner. The officers of the General Partner are designated by the General Partner’s board of directors. Each officer will hold office until his or her successor is designated and qualified or until his or her death, resignation or removal.

Directors of the General Partner are responsible for overall corporate governance of the General Partner and meet periodically to consider strategic decisions regarding the General Partner’s activities. Under CFTC rules, each Director of the General Partner is deemed to be a principal of the General Partner and, as a result, is listed as such with NFA. Patrick T. Egan, Steven Ross, Maureen O’Toole and Feta Zabeli serve on the General Partner’s Investment Committee and are the trading principals responsible for allocation decisions (or supervising those responsible).

Patrick T. Egan, age 49, has been a Director of the General Partner since December 2010. Since December 2010, Mr. Egan has been a principal and registered as an associated person of the General Partner, and is an associate member of NFA. Since October 2014, Mr. Egan has served as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Partner. Since August 2013, Mr. Egan has been registered as a swap associated person of the General Partner. From September 2013 to May 2014, Mr. Egan served as a Vice President of Morgan Stanley Strategies LLC, formerly known as Morgan Stanley GWM Feeder Strategies LLC, which acts as a general partner to multiple alternative investment entities, and Morgan Stanley AI GP LLC, formerly known as Morgan Stanley HedgePremier GP LLC, which acts as a general partner and administrative agent to numerous hedge fund feeder funds. From September 2013 to May 2014, Mr. Egan was registered as an associated person and listed as a principal of each such entity. Since January 2013, each such entity has been registered as a commodity pool operator with the CFTC. Mr. Egan was responsible for overseeing the implementation of certain CFTC and NFA regulatory requirements applicable to such entities. From June 2009 to December 2014, Mr. Egan was employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as Executive Director and as Co-Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Managed Futures from June 2009 through June 2011 and as Chief Risk Officer for Morgan Stanley Managed Futures from June 2011 through October 2014. Since October 2014, Mr. Egan has been responsible for the day-to-day operations and management of Morgan Stanley Managed Futures. Since January 2015, Mr. Egan has been employed by the General Partner. From November 2010 to October 2014, Mr. Egan was registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. From April 2007 through June 2009, Mr. Egan was employed by MS & Co., a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as Head of Due Diligence and Manager Research for Morgan Stanley’s Managed Futures Department. From April 2007 through June 2009, Mr. Egan was registered as an associated person of MS & Co. From March 1993 through April 2007, Mr. Egan was employed by Morgan Stanley DW Inc., a financial services firm, where his initial responsibilities included serving as an analyst and manager within the Managed Futures Department (with primary responsibilities for product development, due diligence, investment analysis and risk management of the firm’s commodity pools) and later included serving as Head of Due Diligence and Manager Research for Morgan Stanley’s Managed Futures Department. From February 1998 through April 2007, Mr. Egan was registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. From August 1991 through March 1993, Mr. Egan was employed by Dean Witter Intercapital, the asset management arm of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., where his responsibilities included serving as a mutual fund administration associate. Mr. Egan also served as a Director from November 2004 through October 2006, and from November 2006 through October 2008 of the Managed Funds Association’s Board of Directors, a position he was elected to by industry peers for two consecutive two-year terms. Mr. Egan earned his Bachelor of Business Administration degree with a concentration in Finance in May 1991 from the University of Notre Dame.

Steven Ross, age 46, has been Chief Financial Officer and a principal of the General Partner since July 2014 and a Director of the General Partner since February 2016. Mr. Ross has been employed by Morgan Stanley Investment Management, a financial services firm, since September 2005, where his responsibilities include serving as an Assistant Treasurer of Morgan Stanley with respect to certain investment vehicles publicly offered by Morgan Stanley. Mr. Ross is also an Executive Director of the Morgan Stanley Fund Administration Group where he is responsible for finance and accounting matters for certain private funds offered by Morgan Stanley. Before joining Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Mr. Ross was employed by JPMorgan Investor Services Co., a financial services firm, from December 1997 through September 2005, where his responsibilities included serving as a Vice President responsible for the accounting of certain funds sponsored by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other large fund families serviced by JPMorgan Investor Services Co. From April 1997 to December 1997, Mr. Ross was employed by Investors Bank & Trust, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included performing mutual fund accounting for financial services firms. Mr. Ross began his career at Putnam Investments LLC, a financial services firm, where he was responsible for providing broker services for certain funds sponsored by Putnam Investments LLC from August 1996 to April 1997. Mr. Ross received a B.S. in Accounting from Rhode Island College in May 1995.

Maureen O’Toole, age 60, has been a Director, listed as a principal and registered as an associated person of the General Partner since May 2016. She has also been the Head of Managed Futures at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, a financial services firm, since May 2016 where she is responsible for developing and managing the managed futures business strategy. She joined Morgan Stanley Investment Management in June 2012 as Managing Director in charge of the intermediary alternative investment sales team. In this capacity she was responsible for the management of a team responsible for business development in managed futures, hedge funds and private investments. She has been registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley Investment Management since June 2012. From April 2010 until June 2012, Ms. O’Toole was a managing director at K2 Advisors, L.L.C., a hedge fund investment advisory firm, where she was responsible for development of the firm’s investment funds. Between March 1993 and April 2010, Ms. O’Toole was employed by a variety of divisions within what became Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a financial services firm. Between August 2009 and April 2010, she worked in product development within Citi Private Bank, where she assisted in sourcing new investment platforms for its alternatives business. Between January 2002 and August 2009, Ms. O’Toole was Managing Director and Head of Sales and Client Service within Citigroup Alternative Investments. In this role she managed the high net worth sales team for Citigroup Alternative Investments through the Global Wealth Management channel, overseeing education and marketing. Prior to that, between November 1996 and January 2002, Ms. O’Toole was Director of Sales and Marketing within the managed futures department of Smith Barney. Prior to being named Director of Sales and Marketing, Ms. O’Toole was involved in the international development of the managed futures business within the managed futures department from March 1993 until November 1996. In this role, Ms. O’Toole oversaw due diligence and portfolio construction for the managed futures department. Ms. O’Toole served as a Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC (the predecessor entity to the General Partner) from August 2001 until October 2006, was listed as a principal of such entity from August 1998 until October 2006 and was registered as an associated person of such entity from January 2004 until October 2006. She was also registered as an associated person of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. from April 1993 until June 2010. Prior to Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Ms. O’Toole was employed at Rodman & Renshaw Inc., an investment bank, as head of managed futures manager research and portfolio construction between March 1989 and March 1993 and was registered as an associated person from June 1991 until March 1993. She was registered as an associated person of Rosenthal Collins Futures Management, Inc., a commodity pool operator and wholly owned subsidiary of Rodman & Renshaw, from January 1992 until March 1993. She began her investment career at Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., an investment bank, in January 1982 where she worked as a research analyst, performing modeling on financial futures hedging and trading strategies until February 1989 and was registered as an associated person from December 1988 until February 1989. Ms. O’Toole obtained her Bachelor of Arts in Speech Pathology and Audiology from California State University Chico, in June 1979, and her Masters in Management from Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, in June 1989.

M. Paul Martin, age 59, has been a Director of the General Partner since October 2014. Mr. Martin has also served as Managing Director – Global Operations of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, a financial services firm, since June 2006, where his responsibilities include managing all elements of in-sourced and out-sourced global operations, and serving as a senior member of Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s Management, Risk Management, & New Products Committees. Mr. Martin has been listed as a principal of the General Partner since October 2014. Mr. Martin previously served as the Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley Fund Services, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included launching the Hedge Fund Administration business and being responsible for operations, fund accounting and administration, technology and compliance, from May 2004 through May 2006. Previously, Mr. Martin served as Managing Director – Institutional Investment Operations of Morgan Stanley Investment Management from January 1995 until April 2004, where his responsibilities included trading room support, portfolio administration, service provider management, and derivatives processing and control. From April 1994 through January 1995, Mr. Martin served as Senior Vice President and Head of Custody Operations for Fidelity Investments, a financial services firm. From October 1989 through April 1994, Mr. Martin served as Executive Director and Head of Global Operations for Morgan Stanley Trust Company, a financial services firm. Mr. Martin also served as Vice President – Information Technology for MS & Co., a financial services firm, from June 1984 through October 1989, where his responsibilities included acting as Senior Developer and Programming Manager – Prime Brokerage and Securities Clearance Systems, and as Part-time Manager – IT Training Program. From February 1984 through May 1984, Mr. Martin served as a Senior Analyst in the Financial Control Group of Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., a financial services firm. From October 1980 through January 1984, Mr. Martin served as a Senior Consultant – Management Information Consulting Division at Arthur Andersen & Co., an accounting firm, where his responsibilities included programming and programming supervisory roles at large governmental agencies. Mr. Martin received a B.S. in Business Administration - Finance from Georgetown University in May 1980 and an M.B.A. in Finance from New York University in June 1993.

Feta Zabeli, age 58, has been a Director of the General Partner since October 2014. Mr. Zabeli has also served as a director on the Board of Directors of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, a financial services firm, since January 2015 and has been listed as a principal since February 2015. Since May 2016, Mr. Zabeli is the Chief Risk Officer for Morgan Stanley Investment Management, responsible for all investment and operational risk management globally. From January 2012 to May 2016, Mr. Zabeli was Global Head of Risk for Morgan Stanley Investment Management’s Traditional Asset Management business where he was responsible for investment risk of all equity, fixed income, money market, multi-asset class and alternatives portfolios. He was also responsible for counterparty and quantitative model risk for the traditional asset management business. He joined Morgan Stanley in January 2012. Mr. Zabeli has been listed as a principal of the General Partner since October 2014. Mr. Zabeli was on garden leave in December 2011. From February 2006 to November 2011, Mr. Zabeli was Senior Vice President, and most recently Global Co-Head of Risk, for AllianceBernstein L.P., a global investment firm, with various risk management assignments in Hong Kong, Tokyo, London and New York. From August 2006 to April 2009, Mr. Zabeli was based in Hong Kong for AllianceBernstein as the Director of Risk Management for Asia Pacific. From April 2009 to July 2011, he was based in Tokyo for AllianceBernstein as both Director of Risk Management for Asia Pacific and Head of Risk Management for Japan. From July 2011 to November 2011, he was based in London for AllianceBernstein as Global Head of Operational & Credit/Counterparty Risk. In these roles at AllianceBernstein he was responsible for the full range of risk management functions including investment, operational and credit/counterparty risk. Prior to his Risk Management roles at Morgan Stanley and AllianceBernstein, Mr. Zabeli held positions as a managing director at Citigroup Asset Management, the asset management division of Citigroup, an international financial services company, from April 1998 to January 2006, where he worked as a quantitative research analyst and portfolio manager, and director at BARRA Inc., a global provider of risk analytic tools to investment institutions, from September 1993 to March 1998, where he developed risk models and applications. Mr. Zabeli received a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in May 1982, an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California in May 1988 and an M.B.A. from the University of California at Los Angeles in August 1992.

Matthew R. Graver, age 50, has been a Director of the General Partner and listed as a principal since November 2016. Since January 2008, Mr. Graver has served as Managing Director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, a financial services firm, and Chief Operating Officer for Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds, a business unit offering managed portfolios of hedge funds. Since November 2015, Mr. Graver has been listed as a principal and director of Morgan Stanley AIP Cayman GP Ltd., a commodity pool operator. From January 2005 to January 2008, Mr. Graver served as Executive Director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management and from August 2003 to January 2005, Mr. Graver served as Vice President of Morgan Stanley Investment Management. From August 2003 to January 2008, Mr. Graver’s primary responsibilities included serving as Head of Operational Due Diligence for Morgan Stanley AIP Fund of Hedge Funds in which role he oversaw due diligence into operational factors of alternative investment entities. From July 1997 to July 2003, Mr. Graver was employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an international auditing and professional services firm, where he served as a senior audit manager and was responsible for managing independent audits of financial services firms. From June 1993 to June 1997, Mr. Graver was employed by PNC Bank, a bank offering consumer and corporate services, where he served as a mutual fund accounting manager and was responsible for managing an accounting team that performed daily accounting functions and valuation calculations for a group of mutual funds. From July 1989 through June 1993, Mr. Graver was employed by Coopers & Lybrand LLP, a predecessor accounting firm to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, where he was a senior audit associate and was responsible for performing audits of financial services firms. Mr. Graver earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting in May 1989 from Pennsylvania State University and Masters of Business Administration from Villanova University in May 2002.

The Partnership has not adopted a code of ethics that applies to officers because it has no officers. In addition, the Partnership has not adopted any procedures by which investors may recommend nominees to the Partnership’s board of directors and has not established an audit committee because it has no board of directors.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

The Partnership has no directors and executive officers. As a limited partnership, the business of the Partnership is managed by Ceres, which is responsible for the administration of the business affairs of the Partnership. The Partnership pays Ceres a General Partner fee equal to an annual rate of 2.0% (paid monthly) of the Partnership’s net assets.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

(a) Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners – As of February 28, 2018, the Partnership knows of no persons who beneficially owns of more than 5% of the outstanding Units.

(b) Security Ownership of Management – Under the terms of the Limited Partnership Agreement, the Partnership’s affairs are managed by the General Partner. The following table indicates securities owned by management as of December 31, 2017:

(1) Title of Class

(2) Name of

Beneficial

Owner

(3) Amount and

Nature of

Beneficial

Ownership

(4) Percent of

Class

Units

General Partner

13,658.423

1.4%

(a) Transactions with related persons. None.

(b) Review, approval or ratification of transactions with related persons. Not applicable.

(c) Promoters and certain control persons. MS&Co., Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, and the General Partner could be considered promoters for purposes of Item 404(c) of Regulation S-K. The nature and the amounts of compensation each promoter received or will receive, if any, from the Partnership are set forth under “Item 1. Business,” “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” and “Item 11. Executive Compensation.”

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

Ceres, on behalf of the Partnership, pays all accounting fees. The Partnership reimburses Ceres through the General Partner fee it pays, as discussed in the Notes to Financial Statements in the Annual Report to the Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2017.

(1) Audit Fees. The aggregate fees billed for each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”) for the year ended December 31, 2017 and Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the audit of the Partnership’s annual financial statements, review of financial statements included in the Partnership’s Forms 10-Q and 10-K and other services normally provided in connection with regulatory filings or engagements were:

2017: $75,853

2016: $81,000

(2) Audit-Related Fees. None.

(3) Tax Fees. The Partnership did not pay EY or Deloitte any amounts in 2017 and 2016, respectively, for professional services in connection with tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning.

(4) All Other Fees. None.

(5) Not applicable.

(6) Not applicable.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.


(1)		Financial Statements incorporated by reference to Exhibit 13.01 of this Form 10-K: Statements of Financial Condition at December 31, 2017 and 2016. Schedules of Investments at December 31, 2017 and 2016. Statements of Income and Expenses for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. Notes to Financial Statements. With the exception of the aforementioned information and the information incorporated in Items 7, 8 and 13, the Annual Report to Limited Partners for the period ended December 31, 2017 is not deemed to be filed with this report.

(2)		Exhibits:

3.01		Sixth Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement, dated as of December 8, 2017, is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.1 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2017.

3.02		Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated April 18, 1994, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.02 of the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 33-80146) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 1994.

3.03		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated April 6, 1999 (changing its name from Dean Witter Spectrum Strategic L.P.), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.04 of the Partnership’s Registration Statement (File No. 333-3222) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 1999.

3.04		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated November 1, 2001 (changing its name from Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Spectrum Strategic L.P.), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.01 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

3.05		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated June 1, 2009, (changing the name and mailing address of the general partner of the Partnership), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.05 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2009.

3.06		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated September 29, 2009 (changing its name from Morgan Stanley Spectrum Strategic L.P. to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Strategic L.P.), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.06 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2009.

10.01		Amended and Restated Advisory Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2014, among Morgan Stanley Smith Barney BHM I, LLC, the General Partner and Blenheim Capital Management, L.L.C., is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 of the Partnership’s Form 10-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2014.

10.02		Management Agreement by and among the Partnership, the General Partner and Aventis Asset Management, LLC, dated as of December 1, 2011, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.06 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2011.

10.02(a)		Amendment No. 1 to the Management Agreement, among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Aventis Asset Management, LLC, dated as of February 7, 2014, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.02(a) of the Partnership’s Form 10-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2014.

10.03		Amended and Restated Management Agreement, by and among the Partnership, the General Partner and PGR Capital LLP, dated December 3, 2013 and effective as of September 1, 2013, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.03 of the Partnership’s Form 10-K (File No. 0-06280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2014.

10.04		Form of Subscription and Exchange Agreement and Power of Attorney to be executed by each purchaser of Units is incorporated by reference to Exhibit B of the Partnership’s Prospectus, dated May 1, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424 (b)(3) under the Securities Act of 1933 on May 8, 2008.



10.05		Escrow Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2007, among the Bank of New York, the General Partner, and Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2007.

10.06		Form of Subscription Agreement Update Form to be executed by purchasers of Units is incorporated by reference to Exhibit C of the Partnership’s Prospectus, dated May 1, 2008, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) under the Securities Act of 1933 on May 8, 2008.

10.07		Amended and Restated Customer Agreement between the Partnership and Morgan Stanley DW, dated as of October 16, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.07(a)		Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Customer Agreement between the Partnership and Morgan Stanley DW Inc., dated July 1, 2005, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15(a) of the Partnership’s Form 10-Q (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2005.

10.08		Amended and Restated Commodity Futures Customer Agreement, between MS&Co. and the Funds listed on Appendix A thereto, dated as of November 12, 2013, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 of the Partnership’s Form 10-Q (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2013.

10.09		Customer Agreement between the Partnership and MSIP, dated as of May 1, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.04 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.10		Foreign Exchange and Options Master Agreement between MS&Co. and the Partnership, dated as of April 30, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.05 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.11		Securities Account Control Agreement between the Partnership and MS&Co., dated as of May 1, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.03 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.12		Foreign Exchange and Options Master Agreement between Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. and the Partnership, dated as of September 27, 2004, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.20 of the Partnership’s Form 10-Q (File No. 0-26280) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2004.

10.13		Amended and Restated Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement, dated as of March 3, 2016, by and among the General Partner, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and the partnerships listed on Schedule 1 thereto, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016.

10.14		U.S. Treasury Securities Purchase Authorization Agreement, effective as of June 1, 2015, by and among MS&Co. and the Partnership, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2015.

10.15		Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement, effective as of March 15, 2015, by and among SS&C Technologies, Inc., the General Partner and each of the collective investment vehicles listed in Schedule C thereto, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-26280) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015.

13.01		December 31, 2017, Annual Report to Limited Partners is filed herewith.

The exhibits required to be filed by Item 601 of Regulations S-K are incorporated herein by reference.

31.1 — Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification (Certification of President and Director).

31.2 — Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification (Certification of Chief Financial Officer and Director).

32.1 — Section 1350 Certification (Certification of President and Director).

32.2 — Section 1350 Certification (Certification of Chief Financial Officer and Director).


99.1		December 31, 2017, PGR Master Fund L.P. (Master in Liquidation) Financial Statements are filed herewith.

99.2		December 31, 2017, MB Master Fund L.P. Financial Statements are filed herewith.

101.INS^		XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH^		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema

101.CAL^		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase

101.DEF^		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase

101.LAB^		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase

101.PRE^		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase

^ Submitted electronically herewith.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.


By:		Ceres Managed Futures LLC
		(General Partner)

By:		/s/ Patrick T. Egan
		Patrick T. Egan
		President and Director
		Date: March 28, 2018

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date indicated.


/s/ Patrick T. Egan	/s/ Feta Zabeli	/s/ Maureen O’Toole
Patrick T. Egan	Feta Zabeli	Maureen O’Toole
President and Director	Director	Director
Ceres Managed Futures LLC	Ceres Managed Futures LLC	Ceres Managed Futures LLC
Date: March 28, 2018	Date: March 28, 2018	Date: March 28, 2018

/s/ Steven Ross	/s/ M. Paul Martin	/s/ Matthew R. Graver
Steven Ross	M. Paul Martin	Matthew R. Graver
Chief Financial Officer and Director	Director	Director
(Principal Accounting Officer)	Ceres Managed Futures LLC	Ceres Managed Futures LLC
Ceres Managed Futures LLC	Date: March 28, 2018	Date: March 28, 2018
Date: March 28, 2018

Supplemental Information to be Furnished With Reports Filed Pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act by Registrants Which Have Not Registered Securities Pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

Annual Report to Limited Partners

No proxy material has been sent to limited partners.

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC LP 10-K