form172ncsr.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing

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

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT
INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number			811-08673

	Dreyfus Investment Portfolios
	(Exact name of Registrant as specified in charter)

	c/o The Dreyfus Corporation 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166
	(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

	John Pak, Esq. 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166
	(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:				(212) 922-6000

Date of fiscal year end:		12/31
Date of reporting period:		12/31/13

	Contents
	THE FUND
2	A Letter from the President
3	Discussion of Fund Performance
6	Fund Performance
8	Understanding Your Fund’s Expenses
8	Comparing Your Fund’s Expenses With Those of Other Funds
9	Statement of Investments
14	Statement of Assets and Liabilities
15	Statement of Operations
16	Statement of Changes in Net Assets
18	Financial Highlights
20	Notes to Financial Statements
29	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
30	Important Tax Information
30	Proxy Results
31	Information About the Renewal of the Fund’s Management Agreement
36	Board Members Information
39	Officers of the Fund
	FOR MORE INFORMATION
	Back Cover

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios,
Core Value Portfolio

The Fund

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Shareholder:

We are pleased to present this annual report for Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Core Value Portfolio, covering the 12-month period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For information about how the fund performed during the reporting period, as well as general market perspectives, we provide a Discussion of Fund Performance on the pages that follow.

The year 2013 proved to be outstanding for U.S. equities. Large-cap stocks delivered their strongest calendar-year performance in well over a decade, and small- and midcap stocks fared even better in an environment of low short-term interest rates, rising corporate earnings, sustained economic growth, and low inflation. In our view, 2013 provided ample evidence of the value of patience and discipline in equity investing, as those who favored a long-term perspective over a focus on news headlines and short-term volatility reaped the rewards provided by rising markets.

Will stocks continue to rally in 2014? We believe that they can. We expect the domestic economy to continue to strengthen over the next year, particularly if U.S. fiscal policy is less restrictive and short-term interest rates remain near historical lows. Stronger growth could convince businesses and consumers to spend more freely, unleashing pent up demand as economic uncertainty wanes. However, we caution that gains in 2014 are unlikely to match those of the past year, and a highly selective approach to security selection could be key to greater relative investment success in the months ahead. As always, we urge you to speak with your financial adviser to identify the investment strategies that are right for you.

Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Sincerely,

J. Charles Cardona
President
The Dreyfus Corporation
January 15, 2014

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE

For the period of January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, as provided by Brian Ferguson, Portfolio Manager

Fund and Market Performance Overview

For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2013, Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Core Value Portfolio’s Initial shares produced a total return of 37.87%, and its Service shares returned 37.52%.¹In comparison, the fund’s benchmark, the Russell 1000^®Value Index, produced a total return of 32.53% for the same period.²

U.S. equities rallied strongly in 2013 as U.S. economic growth accelerated. Large-cap value stocks generally kept pace with the broader market.The fund produced higher returns than its benchmark, generating particularly strong results in the financial, consumer discretionary, and energy sectors.

The Fund’s Investment Approach

The fund seeks long-term growth of capital, with current income as a secondary objective.To pursue its goals, the fund normally invests at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in stocks, focusing on stocks of large-cap value companies. When choosing stocks, we use a “bottom-up” stock selection approach, focusing on individual companies, rather than a “top-down” approach that forecasts market trends. A three-step value screening process is used to select stocks based on value, sound business fundamentals, and positive business momentum.

Recovering Economy Fueled Market’s Gains

Stocks climbed sharply in 2013 during a sustained economic recovery that saw U.S. GDP accelerate from a 1.1% annualized rate during the first quarter of the year to 4.1% for the third quarter. Economic gains were fueled by falling unemployment, rebounding housing markets, low interest rates, and a massive, open-ended quantitative easing program from the Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”).

After rallying early in the year, stocks encountered heightened volatility in late May 2013 when remarks by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke were widely interpreted as a signal that monetary policymakers would begin to back away from their quantitative easing program sooner than expected. Consequently, equities lost value in June before

The Fund 3

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE (continued)

stabilizing over the summer. Stocks resumed their advance in the fall, when the Fed unexpectedly refrained from tapering its bond purchasing program. Even a federal government shutdown in October failed to derail the rally.

Stocks continued to climb over the final two months of the year amid new releases of encouraging economic data. A modest reduction in the Fed’s bond buying program in mid-December had little impact on stock prices, enabling several broad measures of stock market performance to end the year near record highs.

Favorable Stock Selections Buoyed Fund Results

Our stock selection strategy was primarily responsible for the fund’s strong performance compared to its benchmark.The fund further enhanced performance by emphasizing industry groups that appeared well positioned to benefit from improving economic conditions. For example, among financial stocks, the fund generally avoided real estate investment trusts (REITs), a high yielding market segment that was hurt by concerns regarding rising long-term interest rates. Instead, the fund focused on companies leveraged to the rise in equity markets, such as wealth manager Ameriprise Financial and online brokerage firm TD Ameritrade Holding.Another top-performing holding, ING U.S., benefited from advantageous developments in the bond market.

The fund held overweighted exposure to the consumer discretionary sector, where returns were bolstered by investments in media content providers, such asViacom and Walt Disney. Retailer Best Buy further contributed to the fund’s strong relative results when a new management team cut costs and implemented plans for renewed growth. In the energy sector, the fund avoided large, slow growing companies in favor of more nimble exploration and production firms and refiners, such asValero Energy.

The information technology sector proved to be the only area in which the fund significantly underperformed its benchmark. Delays in capital spending by wary corporate customers undermined returns from enterprise services companies such as Oracle, EMC and Cisco Systems.

Positioned for Continued U.S. Recovery

As of year-end, our company-by-company security selection process led the fund to hold overweighted exposure to some of the more economically sensitive industries in the consumer discretionary sector.We also maintained a cyclical bias in the information technology sector, where we believe enterprise spending is likely to accelerate as economic uncertainty wanes and business confidence improves. On the other hand, the fund held relatively little exposure to the telecommunications services and utilities sectors, which, in our analysis, remain vulnerable to weak commodity prices in a low inflation environment.

More generally, we believe the U.S. economy is poised for continued growth with inflationary pressures likely to remain in check.The fund’s current allocation of assets seeks to position the fund to take advantage of these conditions.At the same time, we remain committed to the fund’s value-oriented investment approach, taking profits in holdings that appreciate more rapidly than we believe is sustainable, and redeploying assets to other stocks that appear to offer more attractive risk/reward potential.

January 15, 2014

Please note, the position in any security highlighted with italicized typeface was sold during the reporting period.

Equity funds are subject generally to market, market sector, market liquidity, issuer and investment style risks, among

other factors, to varying degrees, all of which are more fully described in the fund’s prospectus.

The fund is only available as a funding vehicle under variable life insurance policies or variable annuity contracts

issued by insurance companies. Individuals may not purchase shares of the fund directly.A variable annuity is an

insurance contract issued by an insurance company that enables investors to accumulate assets on a tax-deferred basis

for retirement or other long-term goals.

1 Total return includes reinvestment of dividends and any capital gains paid. Past performance is no guarantee of future

results. Share price and investment return fluctuate such that upon redemption, fund shares may be worth more or less

than their original cost.

2 SOURCE: LIPPER INC. — Reflects the reinvestment of dividends and, where applicable, capital gain

distributions.The Russell 1000^®Value Index is an unmanaged index which measures the performance of those

Russell 1000^®companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values. Investors cannot invest

directly in any index.

The Fund 5

The fund’s Initial shares are not subject to a Rule 12b-1 fee.The fund’s Service shares are subject to a 0.25% annual Rule 12b-1 fee. All dividends and capital gain distributions are reinvested.

The fund’s performance shown in the line graph above takes into account all applicable fund fees and expenses for Initial and Service shares (after any expense reimbursements).The Index is an unmanaged index, which measures the performance of those Russell 1000 companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth values. Unlike a mutual fund, the Index is not subject to charges, fees and other expenses. Investors cannot invest directly in any index. Further information relating to fund performance, including expense reimbursements, if applicable, is contained in the Financial Highlights section of the prospectus and elsewhere in this report.

The Fund 7

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1—Significant Accounting Policies:

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios (the “Company”) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”), as an open-end management investment company operating as a series company currently offering four series, including the Core Value Portfolio (the “fund”). The fund is only offered to separate accounts established by insurance companies to fund variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies.The fund is a diversified series.The fund’s investment objective is to seek long-term capital growth. The Dreyfus Corporation (the “Manager” or “Dreyfus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”), serves as the fund’s investment adviser.

MBSC Securities Corporation (the “Distributor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, is the distributor of the fund’s shares, which are sold without a sales charge. The fund is authorized to issue an unlimited number of $.001 par value shares of Beneficial Interest in each of the following classes of shares: Initial and Service. Each class of shares has identical rights and privileges, except with respect to the Distribution Plan and the expenses borne by each class, the allocation of certain transfer agency costs and certain voting rights. Income, expenses (other than expenses attributable to a specific class), and realized and unrealized gains or losses on investments are allocated to each class of shares based on its relative net assets.

The Company accounts separately for the assets, liabilities and operations of each series. Expenses directly attributable to each series are charged to that series’ operations; expenses which are applicable to all series are allocated among them on a pro rata basis.

registrants. The fund’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which may require the use of management estimates and assumptions.Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The Company enters into contracts that contain a variety of indemnifications. The fund’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown.The fund does not anticipate recognizing any loss related to these arrangements.

(a) Portfolio valuation: The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e., the exit price). GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs of valuation techniques used to measure fair value. This hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements).

Additionally, GAAP provides guidance on determining whether the volume and activity in a market has decreased significantly and whether such a decrease in activity results in transactions that are not orderly. GAAP requires enhanced disclosures around valuation inputs and techniques used during annual and interim periods.

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s investments relating to fair value measurements.These inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments.

Level 2—other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.).

Level 3—significant unobservable inputs (including the fund’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments).

The Fund 21

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.

Changes in valuation techniques may result in transfers in or out of an assigned level within the disclosure hierarchy. Valuation techniques used to value the fund’s investments are as follows:

Investments in securities are valued at the last sales price on the securities exchange or national securities market on which such securities are primarily traded. Securities listed on the National Market System for which market quotations are available are valued at the official closing price or, if there is no official closing price that day, at the last sales price. Securities not listed on an exchange or the national securities market, or securities for which there were no transactions, are valued at the average of the most recent bid and asked prices, except for open short positions, where the asked price is used for valuation purposes. Bid price is used when no asked price is available. Registered investment companies that are not traded on an exchange are valued at their net asset value. All of the preceding securities are categorized within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

Fair valuing of securities may be determined with the assistance of a pricing service using calculations based on indices of domestic securities and other appropriate indicators, such as prices of relevant American Depository Receipts and financial futures. Utilizing these techniques may result in transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

When market quotations or official closing prices are not readily available, or are determined not to reflect accurately fair value, such as when the value of a security has been significantly affected by events after the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded (for example, a foreign exchange or market), but before the fund calculates its net asset value, the fund may value these investments at fair value as determined in accordance with the procedures approved by the Company’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”). Certain factors may be considered when fair valuing investments such

as: fundamental analytical data, the nature and duration of restrictions on disposition, an evaluation of the forces that influence the market in which the securities are purchased and sold, and public trading in similar securities of the issuer or comparable issuers. These securities are either categorized within Level 2 or 3 of the fair value hierarchy depending on the relevant inputs used.

For restricted securities where observable inputs are limited, assumptions about market activity and risk are used and are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a summary of the inputs used as of December 31, 2013 in valuing the fund’s investments:


†	See Statement of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

At December 31, 2013, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

(b) Securities transactions and investment income: Securities transactions are recorded on a trade date basis. Realized gains and losses from securities transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis. Dividend income is recognized on the ex-dividend date and interest income, including, where applicable, accretion of discount and amortization of premium on investments, is recognized on the accrual basis.

Pursuant to a securities lending agreement with The Bank of New York Mellon, a subsidiary of BNY Mellon and an affiliate of Dreyfus,

The Fund 23

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

the fund may lend securities to qualified institutions. It is the fund’s policy that, at origination, all loans are secured by collateral of at least 102% of the value of U.S. securities loaned and 105% of the value of foreign securities loaned. Collateral equivalent to at least 100% of the market value of securities on loan is maintained at all times. Collateral is either in the form of cash, which can be invested in certain money market mutual funds managed by the Manager or U.S. Government and Agency securities. The fund is entitled to receive all dividends, interest and distributions on securities loaned, in addition to income earned as a result of the lending transaction. Should a borrower fail to return the securities in a timely manner, The Bank of New York Mellon is required to replace the securities for the benefit of the fund or credit the fund with the market value of the unreturned securities and is subrogated to the fund’s rights against the borrower and the collateral. At December 31, 2013, the value of securities on loan was $642,722, as disclosed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of related collateral exceeded the value of securities on loan. See the Statement of Investments for collateral information. During the period ended December 31, 2013, The Bank of New York Mellon earned $339 from lending portfolio securities, pursuant to the securities lending agreement.

(c) Affiliated issuers: Investments in other investment companies advised by Dreyfus are defined as “affiliated” under the Act. Investments in affiliated investment companies during the period ended December 31, 2013 were as follows:

(d) Dividends to shareholders: Dividends are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Dividends from investment income-net and dividends from net realized capital gains, if any, are normally declared and paid annually, but the fund may make distributions on a more frequent basis to comply with the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).To the extent that net realized capital gains can be offset by capital loss carryovers, it is the policy of the fund not to distribute such gains. Income and capital gain distributions are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from GAAP.

(e) Federal income taxes: It is the policy of the fund to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company, if such qualification is in the best interests of its shareholders, by complying with the applicable provisions of the Code, and to make distributions of taxable income sufficient to relieve it from substantially all federal income and excise taxes.

As of and during the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund did not have any liabilities for any uncertain tax positions.The fund recognizes interest and penalties, if any, related to uncertain tax positions as income tax expense in the Statement of Operations. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund did not incur any interest or penalties.

Each tax year in the four-year period ended December 31, 2013 remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

At December 31, 2013, the components of accumulated earnings on a tax basis were as follows: undistributed ordinary income $276,913, undistributed capital gain $1,397,118 and unrealized appreciation $8,471,405.

The tax character of distributions paid to shareholders during the fiscal periods ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 were as follows: ordinary income $381,448 and $232,572, respectively.

NOTE 2—Bank Lines of Credit:

The fund participates with other Dreyfus-managed funds in a $265 million unsecured credit facility led by Citibank, N.A. and a $300 million

The Fund 25

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

unsecured credit facility provided by The Bank of New York Mellon (each, a “Facility”), each to be utilized primarily for temporary or emergency purposes, including the financing of redemptions. Prior to October 9, 2013, the unsecured credit facility with Citibank, N.A. was $210 million. In connection therewith, the fund has agreed to pay its pro rata portion of commitment fees for each Facility. Interest is charged to the fund based on rates determined pursuant to the terms of the respective Facility at the time of borrowing. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund did not borrow under the Facilities.

NOTE 3—Management Fee and Other Transactions With Affiliates:

(a) Pursuant to a management agreement with the Manager, the management fee is computed at the annual rate of .75% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets and is payable monthly.

The Manager had contractually agreed, from January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2013, to waive receipt of its fees and/or assume the direct expenses of the fund so that the expenses of none of the classes (excluding Rule 12b-1 Distribution Plan fees, taxes, interest expense, brokerage commissions, commitment fees on borrowings and extraordinary expenses) exceeded .80% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets. The reduction in expenses, pursuant to the undertaking, amounted to $9,371 during the period ended December 31, 2013.

(b) Under the Distribution Plan adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Act, Service shares pay the Distributor for distributing its shares, for servicing and/or maintaining Service shares’ shareholder accounts and for advertising and marketing for Service shares.The Distribution Plan provides for payments to be made at an annual rate of .25% of the value of the Service shares’ average daily net assets.The Distributor may make payments to Participating Insurance Companies and to brokers and dealers acting as principal underwriter for their variable insurance products. The fees payable under the Distribution Plan are payable

without regard to actual expenses incurred. During the period ended December 31, 2013, Service shares were charged $35,449 pursuant to the Distribution Plan.

The fund has arrangements with the transfer agent and the custodian whereby the fund may receive earnings credits when positive cash balances are maintained, which are used to offset transfer agency and custody fees. For financial reporting purposes, the fund includes net earnings credits as an expense offset in the Statement of Operations.

The fund compensates DreyfusTransfer, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, under a transfer agency agreement for providing transfer agency and cash management services for the fund. The majority of transfer agency fees are comprised of amounts paid on a per account basis, while cash management fees are related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $97 for transfer agency services and $8 for cash management services.These fees are included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations. Cash management fees were partially offset by earnings credits of $1.

The fund compensates The Bank of NewYork Mellon under a custody agreement for providing custodial services for the fund.These fees are determined based on net assets, geographic region and transaction activity. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $12,929 pursuant to the custody agreement.

The fund compensated The Bank of New York Mellon under a cash management agreement that was in effect until September 30, 2013 for performing certain cash management services related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $3 pursuant to the cash management agreement, which is included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations.

The Fund 27

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $9,093 for services performed by the Chief Compliance Officer and his staff.

The components of “Due to The Dreyfus Corporation and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: management fees $22,528, Distribution Plan fees $3,214, custodian fees $6,137, Chief Compliance Officer fees $2,299 and transfer agency fees $19.

(c) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds within the Dreyfus complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.

NOTE 4—Securities Transactions:

The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, during the period ended December 31, 2013, amounted to $21,404,865 and $24,799,773, respectively.

At December 31, 2013, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $27,766,391; accordingly, accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments was $8,471,405, consisting of $8,676,449 gross unrealized appreciation and $205,044 gross unrealized depreciation.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Shareholders and Board of Trustees

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Core Value Portfolio

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the statement of investments, of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Core Value Portfolio (one of the series comprising Dreyfus Investment Portfolios) as of December 31, 2013, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended.These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement.We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2013 by correspondence with the custodian and others.We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Core Value Portfolio at December 31, 2013, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

New York, New York
February 12, 2014

The Fund 29

IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION (Unaudited)

PROXY RESULTS (Unaudited)

The Company held a special meeting of shareholders on December 6, 2013. The proposal considered at the meeting, and the results, are as follows:


†	Each of the above Board Members were duly elected by shareholders at the fund’s December 6, 2013 shareholder
	meeting. In addition, Joseph S. DiMartino, Gordon J. Davis,Whitney I. Gerard, Nathan Leventhal and Benaree
	Pratt Wiley continue as Board Members of the Company.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE
FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited)

At a meeting of the fund’s Board of Trustees held on July 17-18, 2013, the Board considered the renewal of the fund’s Management Agreement pursuant to which Dreyfus provides the fund with investment advisory and administrative services (the “Agreement”). The Board members, none of whom are “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended) of the fund, were assisted in their review by independent legal counsel and met with counsel in executive session separate from Dreyfus representatives. In considering the renewal of the Agreement, the Board considered all factors that it believed to be relevant, including those discussed below.The Board did not identify any one factor as dispositive, and each Board member may have attributed different weights to the factors considered.

Analysis of Nature, Extent, and Quality of Services Provided to the Fund. The Board considered information provided to them at the meeting and in previous presentations from Dreyfus representatives regarding the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided to funds in the Dreyfus fund complex. Dreyfus provided the number of open accounts in the fund, the fund’s asset size and the allocation of fund assets among distribution channels. Dreyfus also had previously provided information regarding the diverse intermediary relationships and distribution channels of funds in the Dreyfus fund complex (such as retail direct or intermediary, in which intermediaries typically are paid by the fund and/or Dreyfus) and Dreyfus’ corresponding need for broad, deep, and diverse resources to be able to provide ongoing shareholder services to each intermediary or distribution channel, as applicable to the fund.

The Board also considered research support available to, and portfolio management capabilities of, the fund’s portfolio management personnel and that Dreyfus also provides oversight of day-to-day fund operations, including fund accounting and administration and assistance in meeting legal and regulatory requirements. The Board also considered Dreyfus’ extensive administrative, accounting, and compliance infrastructures.The Board also considered portfolio management’s brokerage policies and

The Fund 31

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

practices (including policies and practices regarding soft dollars) and the standards applied in seeking best execution.

Comparative Analysis of the Fund’s Performance and Management Fee and Expense Ratio. The Board reviewed reports prepared by Lipper, Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent provider of investment company data, which included information comparing (1) the fund’s performance with the performance of a group of comparable funds (the “Performance Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Performance Universe”), all for various periods ended May 31, 2013, and (2) the fund’s actual and contractual management fees and total expenses with those of a group of comparable funds (the “Expense Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Expense Universe”), the information for which was derived in part from fund financial statements available to Lipper as of the date of its analysis. Dreyfus previously had furnished the Board with a description of the methodology Lipper used to select the Performance Group and Performance Universe and the Expense Group and Expense Universe.

Dreyfus representatives stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds.The Board discussed the results of the comparisons and noted that the fund’s total return performance was above the Performance Group median for the one-, two- and three-year periods (ranking first in the Performance Group for the one-year period), below the Performance Group median for the four-, five- and ten-year periods and below the Performance Universe median for all periods except for the one-year period when it was above the Performance Universe median and ranking in the first quartile. Dreyfus also provided a comparison of the fund’s calendar year total returns to the returns of the fund’s benchmark index.

Group median, the fund’s actual management fee was below the Expense Group and Expense Universe medians (lowest in the Expense Group) and the fund’s total expenses were below the Expense Group median and above the Expense Universe median.The Board also considered the current fee waiver and expense reimbursement arrangement undertaken by Dreyfus.

Dreyfus representatives reviewed with the Board the management or investment advisory fees (1) paid by funds advised or administered by Dreyfus that are in the same Lipper category as the fund and (2) paid to Dreyfus or the Dreyfus-affiliated primary employer of the fund’s primary portfolio manager(s) for advising any separate accounts and/or other types of client portfolios that are considered to have similar investment strategies and policies as the fund (the “Similar Clients”), and explained the nature of the Similar Clients.They discussed differences in fees paid and the relationship of the fees paid in light of any differences in the services provided and other relevant factors. The Board considered the relevance of the fee information provided for the Similar Clients to evaluate the appropriateness and reasonableness of the fund’s management fee.

Analysis of Profitability and Economies of Scale. Dreyfus representatives reviewed the expenses allocated and profit received by Dreyfus and the resulting profitability percentage for managing the fund and the aggregate profitability percentage to Dreyfus of managing the funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, and the method used to determine the expenses and profit.The Board concluded that the profitability results were not unreasonable, given the services rendered and service levels provided by Dreyfus.The Board also noted the fee waiver and expense reimbursement arrangement and its effect on Dreyfus’ profitability.The Board also had been provided with information prepared by an independent consulting firm regarding Dreyfus’ approach to allocating costs to, and determining the profitability of, individual funds and the entire Dreyfus fund complex. The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.

The Fund 33

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

The Board considered on the advice of its counsel the profitability analysis (1) as part of its evaluation of whether the fees under the Agreement bear a reasonable relationship to the mix of services provided by Dreyfus, including the nature, extent and quality of such services, and (2) in light of the relevant circumstances for the fund and the extent to which economies of scale would be realized if the fund grows and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of fund shareholders. Dreyfus representatives noted that a discussion of economies of scale is predicated on a fund having achieved a substantial size with increasing assets and that, if a fund’s assets had been stable or decreasing, the possibility that Dreyfus may have realized any economies of scale would be less. Dreyfus representatives also noted that, as a result of shared and allocated costs among funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, the extent of economies of scale could depend substantially on the level of assets in the complex as a whole, so that increases and decreases in complex-wide assets can affect potential economies of scale in a manner that is disproportionate to, or even in the opposite direction from, changes in the fund’s asset level. The Board also considered potential benefits to Dreyfus from acting as investment adviser and noted the soft dollar arrangements in effect for trading the fund’s investments.

At the conclusion of these discussions, the Board agreed that it had been furnished with sufficient information to make an informed business decision with respect to the renewal of the Agreement. Based on the discussions and considerations as described above, the Board concluded and determined as follows.

• The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by Dreyfus are adequate and appropriate.

• The Board generally was satisfied with the fund’s improving performance.

• The Board concluded that the fee paid to Dreyfus was reasonable in light of the considerations described above.

• The Board determined that the economies of scale which may accrue to Dreyfus and its affiliates in connection with the management of the fund had been adequately considered by Dreyfus in connection with the fee rate charged to the fund pursuant to the Agreement and that, to the extent in the future it were determined that material economies of scale had not been shared with the fund, the Board would seek to have those economies of scale shared with the fund.

In evaluating the Agreement, the Board considered these conclusions and determinations and also relied on its previous knowledge, gained through meetings and other interactions with Dreyfus and its affiliates, of the fund and the services provided to the fund by Dreyfus. The Board also relied on information received on a routine and regular basis throughout the year relating to the operations of the fund and the investment management and other services provided under the Agreement, including information on the investment performance of the fund in comparison to similar mutual funds and benchmark performance indices; general market outlook as applicable to the fund; and compliance reports. In addition, the Board’s consideration of the contractual fee arrangements for this fund had the benefit of a number of years of reviews of prior or similar agreements during which lengthy discussions took place between the Board and Dreyfus representatives. Certain aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and the Board’s conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of the same or similar arrangements in prior years.The Board determined that renewal of the Agreement was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders.

The Fund 35

	Contents
	THE FUND
2	A Letter from the President
3	Discussion of Fund Performance
6	Fund Performance
8	Understanding Your Fund’s Expenses
8	Comparing Your Fund’s Expenses With Those of Other Funds
9	Statement of Investments
15	Statement of Assets and Liabilities
16	Statement of Operations
17	Statement of Changes in Net Assets
19	Financial Highlights
21	Notes to Financial Statements
30	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
31	Important Tax Information
31	Proxy Results
32	Information About the Renewal of the Fund’s Management Agreement
37	Board Members Information
40	Officers of the Fund
	FOR MORE INFORMATION
	Back Cover

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios,
MidCap Stock Portfolio

The Fund

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Shareholder:

We are pleased to present this annual report for Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, MidCap Stock Portfolio, covering the 12-month period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For information about how the fund performed during the reporting period, as well as general market perspectives, we provide a Discussion of Fund Performance on the pages that follow.

Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Sincerely,

J. Charles Cardona
President
The Dreyfus Corporation
January 15, 2014

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE

For the period of January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, as provided by Warren Chiang, C.Wesley Boggs, and Ronald Gala, Portfolio Managers

Fund and Market Performance Overview

For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2013, Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, MidCap Stock Portfolio’s Initial shares produced a total return of 34.99%, and its Service shares produced a total return of 34.70%.¹In comparison, the fund’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s MidCap^®400 Index (the “S&P 400 Index”), produced a total return of 33.50% for the same period.²

Stocks rallied strongly in 2013 as U.S. economic growth accelerated in the midst of an aggressively accommodative monetary policy from the Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”). Midcap stocks produced modestly better gains than their larger-cap counterparts during the year.The fund produced higher returns than its benchmark, primarily due to the success of our disciplined security selection process in the information technology, materials, financials, and industrials sectors.

The Fund’s Investment Approach

The fund seeks investment results that are greater than the total return performance of publicly traded common stocks of medium-size domestic companies in the aggregate, as represented by the S&P 400 Index.To pursue this goal, the fund normally invests at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in stocks of midcap companies. The fund invests in growth and value stocks, which are chosen through a disciplined investment process that combines computer modeling techniques, fundamental analysis, and risk management. Consistency of returns compared to the S&P 400 Index is a primary goal of the investment process.

Recovering Economy Fueled Market’s Gains

Stocks climbed sharply in 2013 during a sustained economic recovery that saw U.S. GDP accelerate from a 1.1% annualized rate during the first quarter of the year to 4.1% for the third quarter. Economic gains were fueled by falling unemployment, rebounding housing markets, low short-term interest rates, and a massive, open-ended quantitative easing program from the Fed.

The Fund 3

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE (continued)

After rallying early in the year, stocks encountered heightened volatility in late May 2013 when relatively hawkish remarks by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke were widely interpreted as a signal that monetary policymakers would begin to back away from quantitative easing sooner than most analysts had expected. Consequently, equities lost value in June before stabilizing over the summer. Stocks resumed their advance in the fall, when the Fed unexpectedly refrained from tapering its bond purchasing program. Even a federal government shutdown in October failed to derail the rally.

Stocks continued to advance over the final two months of the year amid new releases of encouraging economic data.A modest reduction in the Fed’s bond buying program in mid-December had little impact on stock prices, enabling several major measures of stock market performance to end the year near record highs. In this constructive environment, small- and midcap stocks generally outperformed their large-cap counterparts.

Stock Selections Boosted Fund Performance

The fund participated fully in the market’s gains, outperforming its benchmark on the strength of our disciplined, quantitative stock selection process. Our process added value by identifying attractive stocks using a variety of quality, valuation, and behavioral metrics.

The information technology sector generated the fund’s strongest relative returns of the year, led by communications equipment maker Harris, a stock we purchased due to a high rating in our behavioral and quality models. The stock rose sharply after the company reported better-than-expected revenues and won awards for new products under development. In the materials sector, stock selection within the metals-and-mining industry enhanced relative performance.Among financial stocks, attractive quality metrics influenced our decision to invest in wealth manager Waddell & Reed Financial, Cl.A, which climbed after announcing strong quarterly earnings, wider profit margins, and higher assets under management. In the industrials sector, aerospace-and-defense contractor Alliant Techsystems was rewarded by investors for delivering consistent earnings growth.

Despite strong results from individual stocks such as apparel maker Hanesbrands and drug developer United Therapeutics, disappointing results from a few other consumer discretionary and health care holdings limited the fund’s gains relative to its benchmark.

Apparel makers American Eagle Outfitters and ANN were hurt by weak consumer spending in their target markets, and medical device maker Thoratec failed to meet analysts’ earnings expectations. A few underperformers in the consumer staples sector also detracted from the fund’s relative performance.

Maintaining Our Disciplined Approach

We were pleased to see U.S. equities deliver their best returns in more than a decade during 2013, and pleased as well by the even more robust performance of midcap stocks. Despite the rally in equities, our bottom-up, quantitative investment process has continued to identify individual companies with attractive valuations and high levels of earnings quality in our view. Using this process, and by diversifying the fund’s assets across market sectors, we continue to seek investment opportunities in midcap companies.

January 15, 2014

Please note, the position in any security highlighted with italicized typeface was sold during the reporting period.

Equity funds are subject generally to market, market sector, market liquidity, issuer and investment style risks, among

other factors, to varying degrees, all of which are more fully described in the fund’s prospectus.

Stocks of midcap companies often experience sharper price fluctuations than stocks of large-cap companies.

The fund is only available as a funding vehicle under variable life insurance policies or variable annuity contracts

issued by insurance companies. Individuals may not purchase shares of the fund directly.A variable annuity is an

insurance contract issued by an insurance company that enables investors to accumulate assets on a tax-deferred basis

for retirement or other long-term goals.The investment objective and policies of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios,

MidCap Stock Portfolio made available through insurance products may be similar to other funds managed by

Dreyfus. However, the investment results of the fund may be higher or lower than, and may not be comparable to,

those of any other Dreyfus fund.

1 Total return includes reinvestment of dividends and any capital gains paid. Past performance is no guarantee of future

results. Share price and investment return fluctuate such that upon redemption fund shares may be worth more or less

than their original cost.The fund’s performance does not reflect the deduction of additional charges and expenses

imposed in connection with investing in variable insurance contracts, which will reduce returns.

2 SOURCE: LIPPER INC. — Reflects reinvestment of dividends and, where applicable, capital gain distributions.

The Standard & Poor’s MidCap 400 Index is a widely accepted, unmanaged total return index measuring the

performance of the midsize-company segment of the U.S. market. Investors cannot invest directly in an index.

The Fund 5

The fund’s Initial shares are not subject to a Rule 12b-1 fee.The fund’s Service shares are subject to a 0.25% annual

Rule 12b-1 fee.All dividends and capital gain distributions are reinvested.

The fund’s performance shown in the line graph above takes into account all applicable fund fees and expenses for Initial

and Service shares (after any expense reimbursements).The Index is a widely accepted, unmanaged total return index

measuring the performance of the midsize company segment of the U.S. stock market. Unlike a mutual fund, the Index

is not subject to charges, fees and other expenses. Investors cannot invest directly in any index. Further information

relating to fund performance, including expense reimbursements, if applicable, is contained in the Financial Highlights

section of the prospectus and elsewhere in this report.

The Fund 7

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The following tables describe the performance for each share class for the fiscal periods indicated.All information (except portfolio turnover rate) reflects financial results for a single fund share.Total return shows how much your investment in the fund would have increased (or decreased) during each period, assuming you had reinvested all dividends and distributions. The fund’s total returns do not reflect expenses associated with variable annuity or insurance contracts.These figures have been derived from the fund’s financial statements.


a	Based on average shares outstanding at each month end.
b	Amount represents less than $.01 per share.
See notes to financial statements.

The Fund 19

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1—Significant Accounting Policies:

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios (the “Company”) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”), as an open-end management investment company, operating as a series company currently offering four series, including the MidCap Stock Portfolio (the “fund”).The fund is only offered to separate accounts established by insurance companies to fund variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies.The fund is a diversified series.The fund’s investment objective is to seek investment results that are greater than the total return performance of publicly traded common stocks of medium-size domestic companies in the aggregate, as represented by the Standard & Poor’s MidCap 400^®Index.The Dreyfus Corporation (the “Manager” or “Dreyfus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary ofThe Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”), serves as the fund’s investment adviser.

The Fund 21

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. Rules and interpretive releases of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under authority of federal laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The fund’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which may require the use of management estimates and assumptions.Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s investments relating to fair value measurements.These inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments.

Level 2—other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.).

Level 3—significant unobservable inputs (including the fund’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments).

The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.

Changes in valuation techniques may result in transfers in or out of an assigned level within the disclosure hierarchy. Valuation techniques used to value the fund’s investments are as follows:

The Fund 23

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

on disposition, an evaluation of the forces that influence the market in which the securities are purchased and sold, and public trading in similar securities of the issuer or comparable issuers. These securities are either categorized within Level 2 or 3 of the fair value hierarchy depending on the relevant inputs used.

For restricted securities where observable inputs are limited, assumptions about market activity and risk are used and are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a summary of the inputs used as of December 31, 2013 in valuing the fund’s investments:


†	See Statement of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

At December 31, 2013, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

foreign securities loaned. Collateral equivalent to at least 100% of the market value of securities on loan is maintained at all times. Collateral is either in the form of cash, which can be invested in certain money market mutual funds managed by the Manager or U.S. Government and Agency securities. The fund is entitled to receive all dividends, interest and distributions on securities loaned, in addition to income earned as a result of the lending transaction. Should a borrower fail to return the securities in a timely manner, The Bank of New York Mellon is required to replace the securities for the benefit of the fund or credit the fund with the market value of the unreturned securities and is subrogated to the fund’s rights against the borrower and the collateral. At December 31, 2013, the value of securities on loan was $11,062,426, as disclosed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.The value of related collateral exceeded the value of securities on loan. See the Statement of Investments for collateral information. During the period ended December 31, 2013, The Bank of New York Mellon earned $12,406 from lending portfolio securities, pursuant to the securities lending agreement.

The Fund 25

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

Each tax year in the four-year period ended December 31, 2013 remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

At December 31, 2013, the components of accumulated earnings on a tax basis were as follows: undistributed ordinary income $1,780,140, undistributed capital gains $994,988 and unrealized appreciation $37,291,823.

The tax character of distributions paid to shareholders during the fiscal periods ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 were as follows: ordinary income $2,244,239 and $633,700, respectively.

NOTE 2—Bank Lines of Credit:

The fund participates with other Dreyfus-managed funds in a $265 million unsecured credit facility led by Citibank, N.A. and a $300 million unsecured credit facility provided by The Bank of New York Mellon (each, a “Facility”), each to be utilized primarily for temporary or emergency purposes, including the financing of redemptions. Prior to October 9, 2013, the unsecured credit facility with Citibank, N.A. was $210 million. In connection therewith, the fund has agreed to pay its pro rata portion of commitment fees for each Facility. Interest is charged to the fund based on rates determined pursuant to the terms of the respective Facility at the time of borrowing. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund did not borrow under the Facilities.

NOTE 3—Management Fee and Other Transactions With Affiliates:

(a) Pursuant to a management agreement with the Manager, the management fee is computed at the annual rate of .75% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets and is payable monthly.

The Fund 27

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

The fund compensates DreyfusTransfer, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, under a transfer agency agreement for providing transfer agency and cash management services for the fund. The majority of transfer agency fees are comprised of amounts paid on a per account basis, while cash management fees are related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $758 for transfer agency services and $46 for cash management services.These fees are included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations. Cash management fees were partially offset by earnings credits of $5.

The fund compensated The Bank of New York Mellon under a cash management agreement that was in effect until September 30, 2013 for performing certain cash management services related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $16 pursuant to the cash management agreement, which is included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations.

During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $9,093 for services performed by the Chief Compliance Officer and his staff.

The components of “Due to The Dreyfus Corporation and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: management fees $114,207, Distribution Plan fees $4,870, custodian fees $6,918, Chief Compliance Officer fees $2,299 and transfer agency fees $173.

(c) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds within the Dreyfus complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.

NOTE 4—Securities Transactions:

The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, during the period ended December 31, 2013, amounted to $113,341,793 and $123,368,287, respectively.

At December 31, 2013, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $152,998,067; accordingly, accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments was $37,291,823, consisting of $38,879,374 gross unrealized appreciation and $1,587,551 gross unrealized depreciation.

The Fund 29

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Shareholders and Board of Trustees

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, MidCap Stock Portfolio

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the statement of investments, of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, MidCap Stock Portfolio (one of the series comprising Dreyfus Investment Portfolios) as of December 31, 2013, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement.We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2013 by correspondence with the custodian and others. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, MidCap Stock Portfolio at December 31, 2013, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

New York, New York
February 12, 2014

IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION (Unaudited)

PROXY RESULTS (Unaudited)

The Company held a special meeting of shareholders on December 6, 2013. The proposal considered at the meeting, and the results, are as follows:


†	Each of the above Board Members were duly elected by shareholders at the fund’s December 6, 2013 shareholder
	meeting. In addition, Joseph S. DiMartino, Gordon J. Davis,Whitney I. Gerard, Nathan Leventhal and Benaree
	Pratt Wiley continue as Board Members of the Company.

The Fund 31

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE
FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited)

At a meeting of the fund’s Board of Trustees held on July 17-18, 2013, the Board considered the renewal of the fund’s Management Agreement pursuant to which Dreyfus provides the fund with investment advisory and administrative services (the “Agreement”). The Board members, none of whom are “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended) of the fund, were assisted in their review by independent legal counsel and met with counsel in executive session separate from Dreyfus representatives. In considering the renewal of the Agreement, the Board considered all factors that it believed to be relevant, including those discussed below. The Board did not identify any one factor as dispositive, and each Board member may have attributed different weights to the factors considered.

Dreyfus representatives stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds.The Board discussed the results of the comparisons and noted that the fund’s total return performance was above the Performance Group and Performance Universe medians for all periods except for the ten-year period, ranking in the first quartile of the Performance Group and Performance Universe for the one-, two-, three- and four-year periods. Dreyfus also provided a comparison of the fund’s calendar year total returns to the returns of the fund’s benchmark index.

The Board also reviewed the range of actual and contractual management fees and total expenses of the Expense Group and Expense Universe funds and discussed the results of the comparisons.The Board noted that the fund’s contractual management fee was below the Expense Group median and the fund’s actual management fee and total expenses were below the Expense Group and Expense Universe medians.

The Fund 33

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

Analysis of Profitability and Economies of Scale. Dreyfus representatives reviewed the expenses allocated and profit received by Dreyfus and the resulting profitability percentage for managing the fund and the aggregate profitability percentage to Dreyfus of managing the funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, and the method used to determine the expenses and profit. The Board concluded that the profitability results were not unreasonable, given the services rendered and service levels provided by Dreyfus. The Board also had been provided with information prepared by an independent consulting firm regarding Dreyfus’ approach to allocating costs to, and determining the profitability of, individual funds and the entire Dreyfus fund complex.The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.

whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of fund shareholders. Dreyfus representatives noted that a discussion of economies of scale is predicated on a fund having achieved a substantial size with increasing assets and that, if a fund’s assets had been stable or decreasing, the possibility that Dreyfus may have realized any economies of scale would be less. Dreyfus representatives also noted that, as a result of shared and allocated costs among funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, the extent of economies of scale could depend substantially on the level of assets in the complex as a whole, so that increases and decreases in complex-wide assets can affect potential economies of scale in a manner that is disproportionate to, or even in the opposite direction from, changes in the fund’s asset level. The Board also considered potential benefits to Dreyfus from acting as investment adviser and noted the soft dollar arrangements in effect for trading the fund’s investments.

• The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by Dreyfus are adequate and appropriate.

• The Board was satisfied with the fund’s performance.

• The Board concluded that the fee paid to Dreyfus was reasonable in light of the considerations described above.

The Fund 35

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

	Contents
	THE FUND
2	A Letter from the President
3	Discussion of Fund Performance
6	Fund Performance
8	Understanding Your Fund’s Expenses
8	Comparing Your Fund’s Expenses With Those of Other Funds
9	Statement of Investments
29	Statement of Financial Futures
30	Statement of Assets and Liabilities
31	Statement of Operations
32	Statement of Changes in Net Assets
33	Financial Highlights
34	Notes to Financial Statements
44	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
45	Important Tax Information
45	Proxy Results
46	Information About the Renewal of the Fund’s Management Agreement
51	Board Members Information
54	Officers of the Fund
	FOR MORE INFORMATION
	Back Cover

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios,
Small Cap Stock Index Portfolio

The Fund

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Shareholder:

We are pleased to present this annual report for Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Small Cap Stock Index Portfolio, covering the 12-month period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For information about how the fund performed during the reporting period, as well as general market perspectives, we provide a Discussion of Fund Performance on the pages that follow.

Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Sincerely,

J. Charles Cardona
President
The Dreyfus Corporation
January 15, 2014

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE

For the reporting period of January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, as provided by Thomas J. Durante, Richard A. Brown, and Karen Q.Wong, Portfolio Managers

Fund and Market Performance Overview

For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2013, Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Small Cap Stock Index Portfolio produced a total return of 40.72%.¹In comparison, the fund’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s^®SmallCap 600 Index (the “S&P 600 Index”), produced a 41.31% return for the same period.^2,3

Small-cap stocks responded positively to recovering domestic and global economies during the reporting period.The difference in return between the fund and the S&P 600 Index was primarily the result of transaction costs and operating expenses that are not reflected in the S&P 600 Index’s results.

The Fund’s Investment Approach

The fund seeks to match the performance of the S&P 600 Index.To pursue its goal, the fund invests in a representative sample of stocks included in the S&P 600 Index, and in futures whose performance is tied to the S&P 600 Index.The fund’s investments are selected by a “sampling” process based on market capitalization, industry representation, and other fundamental benchmark characteristics. The fund expects to invest in approximately 500 or more of the stocks in the S&P 600 Index.

Recovering U.S. and Global Economies Fueled Market Gains

The year 2013 began in the midst of a sustained stock market rally driven by improved U.S. employment and rebounding housing markets. Investors were particularly encouraged by a new, open-ended round of quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”). Improving economic conditions in Europe and Japan also contributed to improved investor sentiment.

Economic data continued to improve, and stocks continued to rally, through the spring of 2013. However, in late May, relatively hawkish remarks by Fed chairman Ben Bernanke were widely interpreted as a signal that U.S. monetary policymakers would back away from their quantitative easing program sooner than most analysts expected, sparking declines in June that erased some of the market’s previous gains.The S&P 600

The Fund 3

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE (continued)

Index generally stabilized over the summer, and stocks advanced strongly in September when the Fed refrained from tapering its bond purchasing program. Even a 16-day federal government shutdown in October failed to derail the rally.

Stocks continued to climb over the final two months of the year amid new releases of encouraging economic data. A modest reduction in the Fed’s bond buying program in mid-December had little impact on stock prices, enabling the S&P 600 Index to end the year near record highs.

In this constructive environment, small-cap stocks produced higher returns, on average, than large- and midcap stocks.

Information Technology Sector Led the Market’s Advance

All of the economic sectors represented in the S&P 600 Index produced double-digit gains for the reporting period, reflecting broad-based support for small-cap stocks. The information technology sector led the market rally as producers of electrical equipment, manufacturers of electrical components, and software developers benefited from intensifying demand from small and mid-size businesses for productivity and efficiency enhancements. Results were especially strong among software companies providing cloud computing and data management services, as well as automation technology providers serving a growing U.S. manufacturing base. Rising mergers-and-acquisitions activity also buoyed the small-cap information technology sector during the reporting period.

In the consumer discretionary sector, hotels, restaurants, and leisure companies advanced particularly strongly in 2013’s constructive environment. For example, casual dining restaurant chains encountered more robust customer spending at a time when the cost of opening new locations fell significantly and food prices remained largely unchanged. Meanwhile, textile companies and apparel producers benefited from greater mergers-and-acquisitions activity, and some have cut costs and boosted profit margins by outsourcing their manufacturing operations.

Among financial companies, commercial banks with a regional focus benefited from strengthening housing markets, higher lending volumes, and declining loan losses. In the insurance industry, financial results were bolstered by higher premiums at a time when relatively few domestic natural disasters kept claims low. Capital markets-oriented companies advanced along with the financial markets.

The fund received less favorable contributions to performance from the telecommunications services and utilities sectors due to cash flow issues and investors’ preference for faster growing alternatives. In the energy sector, coal producers were hurt by intensifying competitive pressures, and natural gas exploration-and-production companies were hurt by sluggish demand stemming from low commodity prices.

Replicating the Performance of the S&P 600 Index

Although we do not actively manage the fund’s investments in response to macroeconomic trends, in our view recent evidence of sustained domestic and global growth has the potential to positively impact U.S. equity markets, including small-cap stocks. As always, we have continued to monitor the factors considered by the fund’s investment model in light of current market conditions. In our experience, the fund’s broadly diversified portfolio may help limit the impact on the overall portfolio of unexpected losses in individual sectors or holdings.

January 15, 2014

Equity funds are subject generally to market, market sector, market liquidity, issuer, and investment style risks, among

other factors, to varying degrees, all of which are more fully described in the fund’s prospectus. Stocks of small- and/or

midcap companies often experience sharper price fluctuations than stocks of large-cap companies.

The fund is only available as a funding vehicle under variable life insurance policies or variable annuity contracts

issued by insurance companies. Individuals may not purchase shares of the fund directly.A variable annuity is an

insurance contract issued by an insurance company that enables investors to accumulate assets on a tax-deferred basis

for retirement or other long-term goals.The investment objective and policies of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Small

Cap Stock Index Portfolio made available through insurance products may be similar to other funds managed by

Dreyfus. However, the investment results of the fund may be higher or lower than, and may not be comparable to,

those of any other Dreyfus fund.

1 Total return includes reinvestment of dividends and any capital gains paid. Past performance is no guarantee of future

results. Share price and investment return fluctuate such that upon redemption fund shares may be worth more or less

than their original cost.The fund’s performance does not reflect the deduction of additional charges and expenses

imposed in connection with investing in variable insurance contracts, which will reduce returns.

2 SOURCE: LIPPER INC. — Reflects the reinvestment of dividends and, where applicable, capital gain

distributions.The Standard & Poor’s SmallCap 600 Index is a broad-based index and a widely accepted,

unmanaged index of overall small-cap stock market performance. Investors cannot invest directly in an index.

3 “Standard & Poor’s^®,” “S&P^®,” “Standard & Poor’s 500^™” and “S&P 500^®” are trademarks of Standard &

Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“Standard & Poor’s”) and have been licensed for use by the fund.The fund is not

sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by Standard & Poor’s and Standard & Poor’s does not make any

representation regarding the advisability of investing in the fund.

The Fund 5

FUND PERFORMANCE

^†Source: Lipper Inc.

Past performance is not predictive of future performance.The fund’s performance shown in the graph and table does not

reflect the deduction of taxes that a shareholder would pay on fund distributions or the redemption of fund shares.

The fund’s performance does not reflect the deduction of additional charges and expenses imposed in connection

with investing in variable insurance contracts which will reduce returns.

The above graph compares a $10,000 investment made in Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Small Cap Stock Index

Portfolio on 12/31/03 to a $10,000 investment made in the Standard & Poor’s SmallCap 600 Index (the

“Index”) on that date.

The fund is subject to a 0.25% annual Rule 12b-1 fee.All dividends and capital gain distributions are reinvested.

The fund’s performance shown in the line graph above takes into account all applicable fund fees and expenses.The

Index is a broad-based index and a widely accepted, unmanaged index of overall small-cap stock market performance.The

Index reflects the reinvestment of dividends and, where applicable, capital gain distributions. Unlike a mutual fund, the

Index is not subject to charges, fees and other expenses. Investors cannot invest directly in any index. Further information

relating to fund performance, including expense reimbursements, if applicable, is contained in the Financial Highlights

section of the prospectus and elsewhere in this report.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1—Significant Accounting Policies:

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios (the “Company”) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”), as an open end management investment company, operating as a series company currently offering four series, including the Small Cap Stock Index Portfolio (the “fund”).The fund is only offered to separate accounts established by insurance companies to fund variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies.The fund is a diversified series.The fund’s investment objective is to match the performance of the Standard

& Poor’s^®SmallCap 600 Index. The Dreyfus Corporation (the “Manager” or “Dreyfus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”), serves as the fund’s investment adviser. MBSC Securities Corporation (the “Distributor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, is the distributor of the fund’s shares, which are sold without a sales charge.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification is the exclusive reference of authoritative U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. Rules and interpretive releases of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under authority of federal laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The fund’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which may require the use of management estimates and assumptions.Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s investments relating to fair value measurements.These inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below: Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments.

Level 2—other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.).

Level 3—significant unobservable inputs (including the fund’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments).

The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.

Changes in valuation techniques may result in transfers in or out of an assigned level within the disclosure hierarchy. Valuation techniques used to value the fund’s investments are as follows:

Investments in securities are valued at the last sales price on the securities exchange or national securities market on which such securities

The Fund 35

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

are primarily traded. Securities listed on the National Market System for which market quotations are available are valued at the official closing price or, if there is no official closing price that day, at the last sales price. Securities not listed on an exchange or the national securities market, or securities for which there were no transactions, are valued at the average of the most recent bid and asked prices, except for open short positions, where the asked price is used for valuation purposes. Bid price is used when no asked price is available. Registered investment companies that are not traded on an exchange are valued at their net asset value. All of the preceding securities are categorized within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

U.S. Treasury Bills are valued at the mean price between quoted bid prices and asked prices by an independent pricing service (the “Service”) approved by the Company’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”).These securities are generally categorized within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Service’s procedures are reviewed by Dreyfus under the general supervision of the Board.

fair valuing investments such as: fundamental analytical data, the nature and duration of restrictions on disposition, an evaluation of the forces that influence the market in which the securities are purchased and sold, and public trading in similar securities of the issuer or comparable issuers. These securities are either categorized within Level 2 or 3 of the fair value hierarchy depending on the relevant inputs used.

For restricted securities where observable inputs are limited, assumptions about market activity and risk are used and are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Financial futures, which are traded on an exchange, are valued at the last sales price on the securities exchange on which such securities are primarily traded or at the last sales price on the national securities market on each business day and are generally categorized within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a summary of the inputs used as of December 31, 2013 in valuing the fund’s investments:


†	See Statement of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.
^††	Amount shown represents unrealized appreciation at period end.

The Fund 37

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

At December 31, 2013, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Pursuant to a securities lending agreement with The Bank of New York Mellon, a subsidiary of BNY Mellon and an affiliate of Dreyfus, the fund may lend securities to qualified institutions. It is the fund’s policy that, at origination, all loans are secured by collateral of at least 102% of the value of U.S. securities loaned and 105% of the value of foreign securities loaned. Collateral equivalent to at least 100% of the market value of securities on loan is maintained at all times. Collateral is either in the form of cash, which can be invested in certain money market mutual funds managed by the Manager or U.S. Government and Agency securities. The fund is entitled to receive all dividends, interest and distributions on securities loaned, in addition to income earned as a result of the lending transaction. Should a borrower fail to return the securities in a timely manner, The Bank of New York Mellon is required to replace the securities for the benefit of the fund or credit the fund with the market value of the unreturned securities and is subrogated to the fund’s rights against the borrower and the collateral. At December 31, 2013, the value of securities on loan was $17,928,903, as disclosed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of related collateral exceeded the value of securities on loan. See the Statement of Investments for collateral information. During the period ended December 31, 2013,The Bank of NewYork Mellon earned $73,065 from lending portfolio securities, pursuant to the securities lending agreement.

The Fund 39

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

As of and during the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund did not have any liabilities for any uncertain tax positions. The fund recognizes interest and penalties, if any, related to uncertain tax positions as income tax expense in the Statement of Operations. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund did not incur any interest or penalties.

Each tax year in the four-year period ended December 31, 2013 remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

At December 31, 2013, the components of accumulated earnings on a tax basis were as follows: undistributed ordinary income $3,642,753, undistributed capital gains $16,263,339 and unrealized appreciation $114,504,207.

The tax character of distributions paid to shareholders during the fiscal periods ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 were as follows: ordinary income $3,603,870 and $2,070,862, and long-term capital gains $2,637,059 and $6,321,059, respectively.

NOTE 2—Bank Lines of Credit:

NOTE 3—Management Fee and Other Transactions With Affiliates:

(a) Pursuant to a management agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Manager, the management fee is computed at the annual rate of .35% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets and is payable monthly. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Manager has agreed to pay all of the expenses of the fund (excluding management fees, Rule 12b-1 Distribution Plan fees, taxes, interest expense, brokerage commissions, commitment fees on borrowings, trustees fees, fees and expenses of independent counsel to the fund and the non-interested Board members, and extraordinary expenses). In addition, the Manager has also agreed to reduce its fee in an amount equal to the fund’s allocated portion of the accrued fees and expenses of non-interested Board members and fees and expenses of independent counsel to the fund. During the period ended December 31, 2013, fees reimbursed by the Manager amounted to $8,562.

(b) Under the Distribution Plan adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Act, the fund pays the Distributor for distributing its shares, for servicing and/or maintaining shareholder accounts and for advertising and marketing.The Distribution Plan provides for payments to be made at an annual rate of .25% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets. The Distributor may make payments to Participating Insurance Companies and to brokers and dealers acting as principal underwriter for their variable insurance products. The fees payable under the Distribution Plan are payable without regard to actual expenses incurred. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $683,805 pursuant to the Distribution Plan.

The components of “Due to The Dreyfus Corporation and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: management fees

The Fund 41

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

$96,968 and Distribution Plan fees $69,263, which are offset against an expense reimbursement currently in effect in the amount of $714.

(c) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds within the Dreyfus complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.

NOTE 4—Securities Transactions:

The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities and financial futures, during the period ended December 31, 2013, amounted to $68,734,873 and $45,091,010, respectively.

Derivatives: A derivative is a financial instrument whose performance is derived from the performance of another asset. Each type of derivative instrument that was held by the fund during the period ended December 31, 2013 is discussed below.

Financial Futures: In the normal course of pursuing its investment objective, the fund is exposed to market risk, including equity price risk, as a result of changes in value of underlying financial instruments. The fund invests in financial futures in order to manage its exposure to or protect against changes in the market. A financial futures contract represents a commitment for the future purchase or a sale of an asset at a specified date. Upon entering into such contracts, these investments require initial margin deposits with a counterparty, which consist of cash or cash equivalents.The amount of these deposits is determined by the exchange or Board of Trade on which the contract is traded and is subject to change.Accordingly, variation margin payments are received or made to reflect daily unrealized gains or losses which are recorded in the Statement of Operations.When the contracts are closed, the fund recognizes a realized gain or loss which is reflected in the Statement of

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Shareholders and Board of Trustees

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Small Cap Stock Index Portfolio

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the statements of investments and financial futures, of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Small Cap Stock Index Portfolio (one of the series comprising Dreyfus Investment Portfolios) as of December 31, 2013, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement.We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2013 by correspondence with the custodian and others. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Small Cap Stock Index Portfolio at December 31, 2013, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

New York, New York
February 12, 2014

IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION (Unaudited)

For federal tax purposes, the fund hereby reports 100% of the ordinary dividends paid during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 as qualifying for the corporate dividends received deduction. Shareholders will receive notification in early 2014 of the percentage applicable to the preparation of their 2013 income tax returns. Also, the fund hereby reports $.0492 per share as a short-term capital gain distribution and $.1612 per share as a long-term capital gain distribution paid on March 20, 2013.

PROXY RESULTS (Unaudited)

The Company held a special meeting of shareholders on December 6, 2013. The proposal considered at the meeting, and the results, are as follows:


†	Each of the above Board Members were duly elected by shareholders at the fund’s December 6, 2013 shareholder
	meeting. In addition, Joseph S. DiMartino, Gordon J. Davis,Whitney I. Gerard, Nathan Leventhal and Benaree
	Pratt Wiley continue as Board Members of the Company.

The Fund 45

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE
FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited)

The Board also considered research support available to, and portfolio management capabilities of, the fund’s portfolio management personnel and that Dreyfus also provides oversight of day-to-day fund operations, including fund accounting and administration and assistance in meeting legal and regulatory requirements.The Board also considered Dreyfus’ extensive administrative, accounting, and compliance infrastructures. The Board also considered portfolio management’s brokerage policies

and practices (including policies and practices regarding soft dollars) and the standards applied in seeking best execution.

Dreyfus representatives stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds. The Board discussed the results of the comparisons and noted that the fund’s total return performance was below the Performance Group median for all periods and above the Performance Universe median for all periods except for the one-year period. Dreyfus also provided a comparison of the fund’s calendar year total returns to the returns of the fund’s benchmark index.

The Board also reviewed the range of actual and contractual management fees and total expenses of the Expense Group and Expense Universe funds and discussed the results of the comparisons. Taking into account the fund’s “unitary” fee structure, the Board noted that the fund’s contractual management fee was above the Expense Group median, the fund’s actual management fee was above the Expense

The Fund 47

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

Group median and below the Expense Universe median and the fund’s total expenses were above the Expense Group and Expense Universe medians.

Dreyfus representatives noted that Dreyfus has agreed to pay all of the fund’s expenses, except management fees, Rule 12b-1 fees and certain other expenses, including fees and expenses of the non-interested Board members and their counsel. Dreyfus has also agreed to reduce its fees in an amount equal to the fund’s allocable portion of the fees and expenses of the non-interested Board members and their counsel.

Dreyfus representatives reviewed with the Board the management or investment advisory fees (1) paid by funds advised or administered by Dreyfus that are in the same Lipper category as the fund and (2) paid to Dreyfus or the Dreyfus-affiliated primary employer of the fund’s primary portfolio manager(s) for advising any separate accounts and/or other types of client portfolios that are considered to have similar investment strategies and policies as the fund (the “Similar Clients”), and explained the nature of the Similar Clients.They discussed differences in fees paid and the relationship of the fees paid in light of any differences in the services provided and other relevant factors, noting the fund’s “unitary” fee structure.The Board considered the relevance of the fee information provided for the Similar Clients to evaluate the appropriateness and reasonableness of the fund’s management fee.

itability of, individual funds and the entire Dreyfus fund complex.The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.

The Board considered on the advice of its counsel the profitability analysis (1) as part of its evaluation of whether the fees under the Agreement bear a reasonable relationship to the mix of services provided by Dreyfus, including the nature, extent and quality of such services, and (2) in light of the relevant circumstances for the fund and the extent to which economies of scale would be realized if the fund grows and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of fund shareholders. Dreyfus representatives also noted that, as a result of shared and allocated costs among funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, the extent of economies of scale could depend substantially on the level of assets in the complex as a whole, so that increases and decreases in complex-wide assets can affect potential economies of scale in a manner that is disproportionate to, or even in the opposite direction from, changes in the fund’s asset level.The Board also considered potential benefits to Dreyfus from acting as investment adviser and noted that there were no soft dollar arrangements in effect for trading the fund’s investments.

• The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by Dreyfus are adequate and appropriate.

• The Board generally was satisfied with the fund’s overall performance, in light of the considerations described above.

• The Board concluded that the fee paid to Dreyfus was reasonable in light of the considerations described above.

The Fund 49

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

In evaluating the Agreement, the Board considered these conclusions and determinations and also relied on its previous knowledge, gained through meetings and other interactions with Dreyfus and its affiliates, of the fund and the services provided to the fund by Dreyfus.The Board also relied on information received on a routine and regular basis throughout the year relating to the operations of the fund and the investment management and other services provided under the Agreement, including information on the investment performance of the fund in comparison to similar mutual funds and benchmark performance indices; general market outlook as applicable to the fund; and compliance reports. In addition, the Board’s consideration of the contractual fee arrangements for this fund had the benefit of a number of years of reviews of prior or similar agreements during which lengthy discussions took place between the Board and Dreyfus representatives. Certain aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and the Board’s conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of the same or similar arrangements in prior years.The Board determined that renewal of the Agreement was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders.

	Contents
	THE FUND
2	A Letter from the President
3	Discussion of Fund Performance
6	Fund Performance
8	Understanding Your Fund’s Expenses
8	Comparing Your Fund’s Expenses With Those of Other Funds
9	Statement of Investments
12	Statement of Assets and Liabilities
13	Statement of Operations
14	Statement of Changes in Net Assets
15	Financial Highlights
17	Notes to Financial Statements
26	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
27	Proxy Results
28	Information About the Renewal of the Fund’s Management Agreement
33	Board Members Information
36	Officers of the Fund
	FOR MORE INFORMATION
	Back Cover

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios,
Technology Growth Portfolio

The Fund

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Shareholder:

We are pleased to present this annual report for Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Technology Growth Portfolio, covering the 12-month period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For information about how the fund performed during the reporting period, as well as general market perspectives, we provide a Discussion of Fund Performance on the pages that follow.

Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Sincerely,

J. Charles Cardona
President
The Dreyfus Corporation
January 15, 2014

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE

For the period of January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, as provided by Barry K. Mills, CFA, Portfolio Manager

Fund and Market Performance Overview

For the 12-month period ended December 31, 2013, Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Technology Growth Portfolio’s Initial shares produced a total return of 32.80%, and its Service shares produced a total return of 32.49%.¹The fund’s benchmarks, the Morgan Stanley High Technology 35 Index (“MS High Tech 35 Index”) and the Standard & Poor’s 500^®Composite Stock Price Index (“S&P 500^®Index”), produced total returns of 33.91% and 32.37%, respectively, over the same period.^2,3

Stocks rallied strongly in 2013 as U.S. economic growth accelerated amid subdued inflation and an aggressively accommodative monetary policy from the Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”).Technology stocks slightly outperformed broader market averages. The fund participated in the vast majority of the sector’s gains, scoring notably strong results among social networking companies.

The Fund’s Investment Approach

The fund seeks capital appreciation.To pursue its goal the fund normally invests at least 80% of its net assets in the stocks of growth companies of any size that Dreyfus believes to be leading producers or beneficiaries of technological innovation. In choosing stocks, the fund looks for technology companies with the potential for strong earnings or revenue growth rates, although some of the fund’s investments may currently be experiencing losses. Up to 25% of the fund’s assets may be invested in foreign securities.The fund’s investment process centers on a multi-dimensional approach that looks for opportunities across emerging growth, cyclical, or stable growth companies.The fund’s investment approach seeks companies that appear to have strong earnings momentum, positive earnings revisions, favorable growth, product or market cycles, and/or favorable valuations.

Recovering Economy Fueled Market’s Gains

Stocks climbed sharply in 2013 during a sustained economic recovery that saw U.S.

GDP accelerate from a 1.1% annualized rate during the first quarter of the year to

The Fund 3

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE (continued)

4.1% for the third quarter. Economic gains were fueled by a falling unemployment rate, rebounding housing markets, low short-term interest rates, and a massive, open-ended quantitative easing program from the Fed.

After rallying early in the year in response to positive economic data, stocks encountered heightened volatility in late May 2013 when relatively hawkish remarks by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke were widely interpreted as a signal that monetary policymakers would begin to back away from quantitative easing sooner than expected. Consequently, equities lost value in June before stabilizing over the summer. Stocks resumed their advance in the fall, when the Fed unexpectedly delayed tapering its bond purchasing program until its December meeting. Stocks continued to advance over the final months of the year amid new releases of encouraging economic data, enabling the S&P 500^®Index to end the year near record highs.

Fund Delivered Strong Second-Half Results

Innovative companies at the vanguard of secular technology trends produced especially strong results during the second half of 2013, offsetting earlier weakness and enabling the fund to nearly match the MS High Tech 35 Index’s gains for the reporting period overall. Social networking companies, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, generated some of the fund’s more notable gains as these companies found effective ways to translate fast-growing user bases into expanding revenue streams. Other top performers during 2013 included payment processors, such as MasterCard, which benefited from an accelerating global shift from the use of cash to credit and debit cards in a wide range of transactions. In some of the more economically sensitive segments of the technology sector, our insights into supply chain developments led the fund to strong performers such as networking company Ciena and management consulting firm Accenture.At the same time, we successfully avoided many of the weaker performers in the sector’s more cyclical areas.

Data warehousing solutions provider Teradata proved to be one of the fund’s few notable disappointments in 2013. The company failed to meet analysts’ earnings expectations when its business customers postponed their capital spending plans.The fund’s relative performance was also undercut by its lack of exposure to companies that benefited from one-time corporate events, such as the acquisition of Nokia’s handset business by Microsoft and Dell’s move to take the company private.

Finding Opportunities Among Technology Innovators

Over the past several years, many business enterprises have responded to economic and political uncertainty by retaining capital and delaying major expenditures on technology.We believe that, as financial conditions improve and clarity increases, pent up capital spending is likely to produce attractive opportunities among providers of technology-related products and services to businesses. As of the reporting period’s end, we have identified a number of opportunities meeting our investment criteria among social networking companies, producers of cloud computing applications and infrastructure, and companies engaged in technology-assisted transaction processing and payment-related services.We are also keeping a close eye on changes to industry supply chains for early insights into cyclical growth opportunities.

January 15, 2014

Please note, the position in any security highlighted with italicized typeface was sold during the reporting period.

The technology sector has been among the most volatile sectors of the stock market.Technology companies involve

greater risk because their revenue and/or earnings tend to be less predictable and some companies may be experiencing

significant losses.

Equity funds are subject generally to market, market sector, market liquidity, issuer and investment style risks, among

other factors, to varying degrees, all of which are more fully described in the fund’s prospectus.

The fund is only available as a funding vehicle under variable life insurance policies or variable annuity contracts

issued by insurance companies. Individuals may not purchase shares of the fund directly.A variable annuity is an

insurance contract issued by an insurance company that enables investors to accumulate assets on a tax-deferred basis

for retirement or other long-term goals.

1 Total return includes reinvestment of dividends and any capital gains paid. Past performance is no guarantee of future

results. Share price and investment return fluctuate such that upon redemption, fund shares may be worth more or less

than their original cost.The fund’s performance does not reflect the deduction of additional charges and expenses

imposed in connection with investing in variable insurance contracts, which will reduce returns.

2 SOURCE: BLOOMBERG L.P. — Reflects reinvestment of net dividends and, where applicable, capital gain

distributions.The Morgan Stanley High Technology 35 Index is an unmanaged, equal dollar-weighted index of 35

stocks from the electronics-based subsectors. Investors cannot invest directly in any index.

3 SOURCE: LIPPER INC. — Reflects monthly reinvestment of dividends and, where applicable, capital gain

distributions.The Standard & Poor’s 500^®Composite Stock Price Index is a widely accepted, unmanaged index of

U.S. stock market performance. Investors cannot invest directly in any index.

The Fund 5

FUND PERFORMANCE


†	Source: Lipper Inc.
^††	Source: Bloomberg L.P.
Past performance is not predictive of future performance.The fund’s performance shown in the graph and table does not
reflect the deduction of taxes that a shareholder would pay on fund distributions or the redemption of fund shares.
*The fund’s performance does not reflect the deduction of additional charges and expenses imposed in connection*
*with investing in variable insurance contracts which will reduce returns.*
The above graph compares a $10,000 investment made in Initial and Service shares of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios,
Technology Growth Portfolio on 12/31/03 to a $10,000 investment made in the Morgan Stanley High Technology 35
Index (the “MS High Tech 35 Index”) and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite Stock Price Index (the “S&P 500
Index”) on that date.

The fund’s performance shown in the line graph above takes into account all applicable fund fees and expenses for Initial and Service shares.The MS High Tech 35 Index is an unmanaged, equal dollar-weighted index of 35 stocks from the electronics-based subsectors.The S&P 500 Index is a widely accepted, unmanaged index of U.S. stock market performance. Unlike a mutual fund, the indices are not subject to charges, fees and other expenses. Investors cannot invest directly in any index. Further information relating to fund performance, including expense reimbursements, if applicable, is contained in the Financial Highlights section of the prospectus and elsewhere in this report.

The Fund 7

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS


a	Based on average shares outstanding at each month end.
b	Amount represents less than $.01 per share.
See notes to financial statements.

The Fund 15

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NOTE 1—Significant Accounting Policies:

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios (the “Company”) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”), as an open-end management investment company, operating as a series company, currently offering four series, including the Technology Growth Portfolio (the “fund”). The fund is only offered to separate accounts established by insurance companies to fund variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies.The fund is a diversified series. The fund’s investment objective is to seek capital appreciation. The Dreyfus Corporation (the “Manager” or “Dreyfus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”), serves as the fund’s investment adviser.

The Fund 17

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

authority of federal laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The fund’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which may require the use of management estimates and assumptions.Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s investments relating to fair value measurements.These inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments.

Level 2—other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.).

Level 3—significant unobservable inputs (including the fund’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments).

The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.

Changes in valuation techniques may result in transfers in or out of an assigned level within the disclosure hierarchy. Valuation techniques used to value the fund’s investments are as follows:

Fair valuing of securities may be determined with the assistance of a pricing service using calculations based on indices of domestic securities and other appropriate indicators, such as prices of relevant ADRs and financial futures. Utilizing these techniques may result in transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Fund 19

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

For restricted securities where observable inputs are limited, assumptions about market activity and risk are used and are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a summary of the inputs used as of December 31, 2013 in valuing the fund's investments:


†	See Statement of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

At December 31, 2013, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

origination, all loans are secured by collateral of at least 102% of the value of U.S. securities loaned and 105% of the value of foreign securities loaned. Collateral equivalent to at least 100% of the market value of securities on loan is maintained at all times. Collateral is either in the form of cash, which can be invested in certain money market mutual funds managed by the Manager or U.S. Government and Agency secu-rities.The fund is entitled to receive all dividends, interest and distributions on securities loaned, in addition to income earned as a result of the lending transaction. Should a borrower fail to return the securities in a timely manner,The Bank of NewYork Mellon is required to replace the securities for the benefit of the fund or credit the fund with the market value of the unreturned securities and is subrogated to the fund’s rights against the borrower and the collateral.At December 31, 2013, the value of securities on loan was $16,667,373, as disclosed in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.The value of related collateral exceeded the value of securities on loan. See the Statement of Investments for collateral information. During the period ended December 31, 2013,The Bank of New York Mellon earned $17,325 from lending portfolio securities, pursuant to the securities lending agreement.

The Fund 21

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

Each tax year in the four-year period ended December 31, 2013 remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

At December 31, 2013, the components of accumulated earnings on a tax basis were as follows: undistributed capital gains $15,763,261 and unrealized appreciation $73,707,061.

During the period ended December 31, 2013, as a result of permanent book to tax differences, primarily due to the tax treatment for net operating losses, the fund increased accumulated undistributed investment income-net by $531,973 and decreased paid-in capital by the same amount. Net assets and net asset value per share were not affected by this reclassification.

NOTE 2—Bank Lines of Credit:

The average amount of borrowings outstanding under the Facilities during the period ended December 31, 2013 was approximately $58,900 with a related weighted average annualized interest rate of 1.13%.

NOTE 3—Management Fee and Other Transactions With Affiliates:

(a) Pursuant to a management agreement with the Manager, the management fee is computed at the annual rate of .75% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets and is payable monthly.

(b) Under the Distribution Plan adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Act, Service shares pay the Distributor for distributing its shares, for servicing and/or maintaining Service shares’ shareholder accounts and for advertising and marketing for Service shares. The Distribution Plan provides for payments to be made at an annual rate of .25% of the value of the Service shares’ average daily net assets.The Distributor may make payments to Participating Insurance Companies and to brokers and dealers acting as principal underwriter for their variable insurance products. The fees payable under the Distribution Plan are payable without regard to actual expenses incurred. During the period ended December 31, 2013, Service shares were charged $408,169 pursuant to the Distribution Plan.

The Fund 23

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)

The fund compensates DreyfusTransfer, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, under a transfer agency agreement for providing transfer agency and cash management services for the fund. The majority of transfer agency fees are comprised of amounts paid on a per account basis, while cash management fees are related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $566 for transfer agency services and $44 for cash management services.These fees are included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations. Cash management fees were partially offset by earnings credits of $4.

The fund compensated The Bank of New York Mellon under a cash management agreement that was in effect until September 30, 2013 for performing certain cash management services related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $14 pursuant to the cash management agreement, which is included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations.

During the period ended December 31, 2013, the fund was charged $9,093 for services performed by the Chief Compliance Officer and his staff.

The components of “Due to The Dreyfus Corporation and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: management fees $173,214, Distribution Plan fees $37,841, custodian fees $8,631, Chief Compliance Officer fees $2,299 and transfer agency fees $163.

(c) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds within the Dreyfus complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.

NOTE 4—Securities Transactions:

The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, during the period ended December 31, 2013, amounted to $165,197,751 and $202,866,334, respectively.

At December 31, 2013, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $214,329,996; accordingly, accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments was $73,707,061, consisting of $75,342,081 gross unrealized appreciation and $1,635,020 gross unrealized depreciation.

The Fund 25

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Shareholders and Board of Trustees

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Technology Growth Portfolio

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the statement of investments, of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios, Technology Growth Portfolio (one of the series comprising Dreyfus Investment Portfolios) as of December 31, 2013, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement.We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of December 31, 2013 by correspondence with the custodian and others. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Dreyfus Investment Portfolios,Technology Growth Portfolio at December 31, 2013, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

New York, New York
February 12, 2014

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE
FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited)

Analysis of Nature, Extent, and Quality of Services Provided to the Fund.The Board considered information provided to them at the meeting and in previous presentations from Dreyfus representatives regarding the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided to funds in the Dreyfus fund complex. Dreyfus provided the number of open accounts in the fund, the fund’s asset size and the allocation of fund assets among distribution channels. Dreyfus also had previously provided information regarding the diverse intermediary relationships and distribution channels of funds in the Dreyfus fund complex (such as retail direct or intermediary, in which intermediaries typically are paid by the fund and/or Dreyfus) and Dreyfus’ corresponding need for broad, deep, and diverse resources to be able to provide ongoing shareholder services to each intermediary or distribution channel, as applicable to the fund.

The Board also considered research support available to, and portfolio management capabilities of, the fund’s portfolio management personnel and that Dreyfus also provides oversight of day-to-day fund operations, including fund accounting and administration and assistance in meeting legal and regulatory requirements.The Board also considered Dreyfus’ extensive administrative, accounting, and compliance infrastructures. The Board also considered portfolio management’s brokerage policies and practices (including policies and practices regarding soft dollars) and the standards applied in seeking best execution.

Dreyfus representatives stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds.The Board discussed the results of the comparisons and noted that the fund’s total return performance was below the Performance Group median for all periods except for the five-year period and was variously above and below the Performance Universe median. They noted the proximity to the median in certain of the periods when the fund’s performance was below the Performance Group median. Dreyfus also provided a comparison of the fund’s calendar year total returns to the returns of the fund’s benchmark index.

The Board also reviewed the range of actual and contractual management fees and total expenses of the Expense Group and Expense Universe funds and discussed the results of the comparisons.The Board noted that the fund’s contractual management fee was below the Expense Group median, the fund’s actual management fee was below the Expense Group median and slightly above the Expense Universe median and the fund’s total expenses were below the Expense Group and the Expense Universe medians.

The Fund 29

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

Analysis of Profitability and Economies of Scale. Dreyfus representatives reviewed the expenses allocated and profit received by Dreyfus and the resulting profitability percentage for managing the fund and the aggregate profitability percentage to Dreyfus of managing the funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, and the method used to determine the expenses and profit. The Board concluded that the profitability results were not unreasonable, given the services rendered and service levels provided by Dreyfus. The Board also had been provided with information prepared by an independent consulting firm regarding Dreyfus’ approach to allocating costs to, and determining the profitability of, individual funds and the entire Dreyfus fund complex.The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.

• The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by Dreyfus are adequate and appropriate.

• The Board generally was satisfied with the fund’s overall performance.

• The Board concluded that the fee paid to Dreyfus was reasonable in light of the considerations described above.

The Fund 31

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

In evaluating the Agreement, the Board considered these conclusions and determinations and also relied on its previous knowledge, gained through meetings and other interactions with Dreyfus and its affiliates, of the fund and the services provided to the fund by Dreyfus.The Board also relied on information received on a routine and regular basis throughout the year relating to the operations of the fund and the investment management and other services provided under the Agreement, including information on the investment performance of the fund in comparison to similar mutual funds and benchmark performance indices; general market outlook as applicable to the fund; and compliance reports. In addition, the Board’s consideration of the contractual fee arrangements for this fund had the benefit of a number of years of reviews of prior or similar agreements during which lengthy discussions took place between the Board and Dreyfus representatives. Certain aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and the Board’s conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of the same or similar arrangements in prior years. The Board determined that renewal of the Agreement was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders.

Item 2. Code of Ethics.

The Registrant has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the Registrant's principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. There have been no amendments to, or waivers in connection with, the Code of Ethics during the period covered by this Report.

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.

The Registrant's Board has determined that Joseph S. DiMartino, a member of the Audit Committee of the Board, is an audit committee financial expert as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). Joseph S. DiMartino is "independent" as defined by the SEC for purposes of audit committee financial expert determinations.

Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

(a) Audit Fees. The aggregate fees billed for each of the last two fiscal years (the "Reporting Periods") for professional services rendered by the Registrant's principal accountant (the "Auditor") for the audit of the Registrant's annual financial statements or services that are normally provided by the Auditor in connection with the statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for the Reporting Periods, were $123,428 in 2012 and $126,376 in 2013.

(b) Audit-Related Fees. The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for assurance and related services by the Auditor that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the Registrant's financial statements and are not reported under paragraph (a) of this Item 4 were $36,431 in 2012 and $36,431 in 2013. These services consisted of one or more of the following: (i) agreed upon procedures related to compliance with Internal Revenue Code section 817(h), (ii) security counts required by Rule 17f-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (iii) advisory services as to the accounting or disclosure treatment of Registrant transactions or events and (iv) advisory services to the accounting or disclosure treatment of the actual or potential impact to the Registrant of final or proposed rules, standards or interpretations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Boards or other regulatory or standard-setting bodies.

The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for non-audit assurance and related services by the Auditor to the Registrant's investment adviser (not including any sub-investment adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the Registrant ("Service Affiliates"), that were reasonably related to the performance of the annual audit of the Service Affiliate, which required pre-approval by the Audit Committee were $0 in 2012 and $0 in 2013.

(c) Tax Fees. The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for professional services rendered by the Auditor for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning ("Tax Services") were $13,336 in 2012 and $15,363 in 2013. These services consisted of: (i) review or preparation of U.S. federal, state, local and excise tax returns; (ii) U.S. federal, state and local tax planning, advice and assistance regarding statutory, regulatory or administrative developments; (iii) tax advice regarding tax qualification matters and/or treatment of various financial instruments held or proposed to be acquired or held, and (iv) determination of Passive Foreign Investment Companies. The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for Tax Services by the Auditor to Service Affiliates, which required pre-approval by the Audit Committee were $0 in 2012 and $0 in 2013.

(d) All Other Fees. The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for products and services provided by the Auditor, other than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Item, were $12 in 2012 and $12 in 2013. [These services consisted of a review of the Registrant's anti-money laundering program].

The aggregate fees billed in the Reporting Periods for Non-Audit Services by the Auditor to Service Affiliates, other than the services reported in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this Item, which required pre-approval by the Audit Committee, were $200,000 in 2012 and $0 in 2013.

(e)(1) Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures. The Registrant's Audit Committee has established policies and procedures (the "Policy") for pre-approval (within specified fee limits) of the Auditor's engagements for non-audit services to the Registrant and Service Affiliates without specific case-by-case consideration. The pre-approved services in the Policy can include pre-approved audit services, pre-approved audit-related services, pre-approved tax services and pre-approved all other services. Pre-approval considerations include whether the proposed services are compatible with maintaining the Auditor's independence. Pre-approvals pursuant to the Policy are considered annually.

(e)(2) Note: None of the services described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this Item 4 were approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) None of the hours expended on the principal accountant's engagement to audit the registrant's financial statements for the most recent fiscal year were attributed to work performed by persons other than the principal account's full-time, permanent employees.

Non-Audit Fees. The aggregate non-audit fees billed by the Auditor for services rendered to the Registrant, and rendered to Service Affiliates, for the Reporting Periods were $49,204,697 in 2012 and $50,384,343 in 2013.

Auditor Independence. The Registrant's Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to Service Affiliates, which were not pre-approved (not requiring pre-approval), is compatible with maintaining the Auditor's independence.

Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.

Not applicable. [CLOSED-END FUNDS ONLY]

Item 6. Investments.

(a) Not applicable.

Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable. [CLOSED-END FUNDS ONLY]

Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable. [CLOSED-END FUNDS ONLY, beginning with reports for periods ended on and after December 31, 2005]

Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Companies and Affiliated Purchasers.

Not applicable. [CLOSED-END FUNDS ONLY]

Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

There have been no material changes to the procedures applicable to Item 10.

Item 11. Controls and Procedures.

(a) The Registrant's principal executive and principal financial officers have concluded, based on their evaluation of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report, that the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant on Form N-CSR is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the required time periods and that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant in the reports that it files or submits on Form N-CSR is accumulated and communicated to the Registrant's management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

(b) There were no changes to the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Item 12. Exhibits.

(a)(1) Code of ethics referred to in Item 2.

(a)(2) Certifications of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

(a)(3) Not applicable.

(b) Certification of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Dreyfus Investment Portfolios

By: /s/ Bradley J. Skapyak
Bradley J. Skapyak President
Date:	February 14, 2014

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this Report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By: /s/ Bradley J. Skapyak
Bradley J. Skapyak President
Date:	February 14, 2014

By: /s/ James Windels
James Windels Treasurer
Date:	February 14, 2014

EXHIBIT INDEX

(a)(1) Code of ethics referred to in Item 2.

(a)(2) Certifications of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940. (EX-99.CERT)

(b) Certification of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940. (EX-99.906CERT)

Exhibit A

Persons Covered by the Code of Ethics

Bradley J. Skapyak	President	(Principal Executive Officer)

James Windels	Treasurer	(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Revised as of January 1, 2010