Form 10-K

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.404 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

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

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

State the aggregate market value of the Units of Limited Partnership Interest held by non-affiliates of the registrant. The aggregate market value shall be computed by reference to the price at which Units were sold as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $334,886,507 at June 30, 2011.


Documents Incorporated		Part of Form 10-K

Annual Report to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Series Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2011		II, III, and IV

(a) General Development of Business. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. (the “Partnership”) is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1991 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy, and agricultural products (collectively, “Futures Interests”). The Partnership commenced trading operations on August 1, 1991. The Partnership is one of the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum series of funds, comprised of the Partnership, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Currency and Commodity L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Global Balanced L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Strategic L.P., and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Technical L.P. (collectively, the “Spectrum Series”).

The Partnership’s general partner is Ceres Managed Futures LLC (“Ceres” or the “General Partner”). The non-clearing commodity broker is Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”). The clearing commodity brokers are Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”) (formerly, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated) and Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc (“MSIP”). MS&Co. also acts as the counterparty on all trading of foreign currency forward contracts. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (“MSCG”) acts as the counterparty on all trading of options on foreign currency forward contracts. MSIP serves as the commodity broker for trades on the London Metal Exchange. Ceres is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC (“MSSBH”). MSSBH

is majority-owned indirectly by Morgan Stanley and minority-owned indirectly by Citigroup Inc. (“Citigroup”). MSSB is the principal subsidiary of MSSBH. MS&Co., MSIP, and MSCG are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Morgan Stanley. The trading advisors to the Partnership are EMC Capital Management, Inc. (“EMC”), Northfield Trading L.P. (“Northfield”), Rabar Market Research, Inc. (“Rabar”), Sunrise Capital Management, Inc. (“Sunrise Capital”), Graham Capital Management, L.P. (“Graham”), and Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited (“Altis”) (each individually, a “Trading Advisor”, or collectively, the “Trading Advisors”). A description of the trading activities and focus of each Trading Advisor begins on page 39 under Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Effective May 31, 2011, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated changed its name to Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.

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

The management fee for the Partnership is accrued at a rate of 1/12 of 1.25% per month of net assets allocated to Altis on the first day of each month (a 1.25% annual rate), 1/6 of 1% per month of net assets allocated to Graham on the first day of each month (a 2% annual rate), 1/12 of 2% per month of net assets allocated to EMC and Rabar on the first day of each month (a 2% annual rate), and 1/12 of 2% per month of net assets allocated to Northfield and Sunrise Capital on the first day of each month (a 2% annual rate).

Prior to February 1, 2011, the monthly management fee payable to Sunrise Capital was 1/4 of 1% per month (a 3% annual rate).

Prior to July 1, 2011, the monthly management fee payable to EMC and Rabar was 5/24 of 1% (a 2.50% annual rate).

Prior to July 1, 2011, the monthly management fee payable to Northfield was 1/12 of 3% (a 3% annual rate).

In addition, the Partnership pays a monthly incentive fee equal to 20% of the trading profits experienced with respect to the net assets allocated to Northfield, EMC, Sunrise Capital, Rabar, Altis and Graham as of the end of each calendar month.

Prior to February 1, 2011, the monthly incentive fee rate paid to Sunrise Capital was 15%.

Prior to July 1, 2011, the Partnership paid Northfield a monthly incentive fee equal to 15% of the trading profits experienced with respect to the trading advisor’s allocated net assets as of the end of each calendar month.

Prior to July 1, 2011, the Partnership paid EMC and Rabar a monthly incentive fee equal to 17.5% of the trading profits experienced with respect to the trading advisors’ allocated net assets as of the end of each calendar month.

Trading profits represent the amount by which profits from futures, forwards, and options trading exceed losses after brokerage and management fees are deducted. For all trading advisors with trading losses, no incentive fee is paid in subsequent months until all such losses are recovered. Cumulative trading losses are adjusted on a pro-rata basis for the net amount of each month’s redemptions.

The current term of the Management Agreement with Altis will expire on October 9, 2012 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. The current term of the Management Agreement with EMC will expire on May 1, 2012 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. The current term of the Management Agreement with Graham will expire on December 31, 2012 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. The current term of the Management Agreement with Northfield will expire on April 30, 2012 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. The current term of the

Management Agreement with Rabar will expire on May 1, 2012 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. The current term of the Management Agreement with Sunrise Capital will expire on May 1, 2012 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. In general, each Management Agreement may be terminated upon notice by either party.

The Partnership began the year at a net asset value per unit of limited partnership interest (“Unit(s)) of $38.03 and returned (17.9)% to $31.24 per Unit on December 31, 2011. For a more detailed description of the Partnership’s business see subparagraph (c).

(b) Financial Information about Segments. For financial information reporting purposes, the Partnership is deemed to engage in one industry segment, the speculative trading of futures, forwards and options on such contracts. The relevant financial information is presented in Items 6 and 8.

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

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

(e) Available Information. The Partnership files an annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to these reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). You may read and copy any document filed by the Partnership at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for information on the Public Reference Room. The Partnership does not maintain an internet website, however, the Partnership’s SEC filings are available to the public from the EDGAR database on the SEC’s website at “http://www.sec.gov”. The Partnership’s CIK number is 0000873799.

The following risk factors contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor from civil liability provided for such statements by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (set forth in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). All quantitative disclosures in “Quantifying the Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk” in Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” are deemed to be forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor, except for statements of historical fact. The qualitative disclosures, except for (A) those disclosures that are statements of historical fact and (B) the descriptions of how the Partnership manages its primary market risk exposure, in the

“Qualitative Disclosure Regarding Primary Trading Risk Exposures” in Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk are deemed to be forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor.

Current limited partners of the Partnership are advised that effective December 1, 2008, the General Partner no longer accepts any subscriptions for investments in the Partnership or any exchanges in from other Spectrum Series partnerships for Units of the Partnership. Current limited partners of the Partnership will continue to be able to redeem Units of the Partnership.

The Partnership is in the business of speculative trading of futures, forwards and options on such contracts. For a detailed description of the risks that may affect the business of the Partnership or the limited partnership interests offered by the Partnership, see the discussion of the risk factors as set forth in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

The Partnership’s executive and administrative offices are located within the offices of MS&Co. The MS&Co. offices utilized by the Partnership are located at 522 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

The Partnership is not engaged in any legal or arbitration proceedings and no legal or arbitration proceedings are known to be pending or threatened by or against the Partnership. During the five years preceding the date of this Memorandum, there have been (other than as described below) no administrative, civil or criminal actions pending, on appeal or concluded against Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, the General Partner, MS & Co., MSIP, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc. (“MSDW”), MSCG or any of their respective affiliates or principals which the General Partner believes would be material to an investor’s decision to invest in the Partnership. Unless the context otherwise requires, for purposes of this section, the terms the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” mean Morgan Stanley and its consolidated subsidiaries.

In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, the Company has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In some cases, the entities that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress.

The Company is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding the Company’s business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.

The Company contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. Where available information indicates that it is probable a liability had been incurred at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to income.

In many proceedings, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when such proceedings will be resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek substantial or indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification and the calculation of damages, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company, although the outcome of such proceedings could be material to the Company’s operating results and cash flows for a particular period depending on, among other things, the level of the Company’s revenues or income for such period.

Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity focused on residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters has increased materially in the financial services industry. As a result, the Company expects that it may become the subject of increased claims for damages and other relief regarding residential mortgages and related securities in the future and, while the Company has identified below certain proceedings that the Company believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that additional material losses will not be incurred from residential mortgage claims that have not yet been notified to the Company or are not yet determined to be material.

Effective on or about April 1, 2007 MSDW was merged into MS & Co., which has assumed all of the responsibilities of MSDW. For purposes of clarity, however, MSDW’s litigation disclosure will be retained and listed separately, in relevant part, until the fifth anniversary of the date of each specific disclosure item in the MSDW sub-section.

On September 27, 2007, FINRA announced that MS & Co., on behalf of itself and as successor to MSDW, entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent to resolve charges filed by FINRA on December 19, 2006. In the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent, FINRA found that, among other things, MS & Co. provided inaccurate information regarding the existence

of pre-September 11, 2001 emails and failed to provide such emails to arbitration claimants and regulators in response to discovery obligations and regulatory inquiries, failed adequately to preserve books and records, and failed to establish and maintain systems and written procedures reasonably designed to preserve required records and to ensure that it conducted adequate searches in response to regulatory inquiries and discovery requests. The Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent also included findings that MS & Co. failed to provide arbitration claimants with updates to a supervisory manual when called for in discovery. FINRA found that MS & Co. violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-4 thereunder, FINRA Conduct Rules 2110, 3010 (a) and (b) and 3110, FINRA Procedural Rule 8210 and Interpretative Material 10100 under the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure. In the settlement, MS & Co. neither admitted nor denied these findings. The settlement established a $9.5 million fund for the benefit of potentially affected arbitration claimants to be administered by a third party at the expense of MS & Co. In addition, MS & Co. was censured and agreed to pay a $3 million regulatory fine and to retain an independent consultant to review its procedures for complying with discovery requirements in arbitration proceedings relating to MS & Co.’s retail brokerage operations.

On October 10, 2007, MS & Co., on behalf of itself and as successor to MSDW, became the subject of an Order Instituting Administrative And Cease-And-Desist Proceedings by the SEC. The Order found that from as early as 2000 until 2006, MS & Co. failed to provide to its customers accurate and complete written trade confirmations for certain fixed income securities in violation of Rule 10b-10 under the Exchange Act, Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule G-15 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). The Order censured MS & Co., ordered it to

cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Rule 10b-10 under the Exchange Act, Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, and MSRB Rule G-15, ordered MS & Co. to pay a $7.5 million penalty, and to retain an independent consultant to review MS & Co.’s policies and procedures. MS & Co. consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the SEC’s findings, except as to the SEC’s jurisdiction over the matter.

Regulatory and Governmental Matters. The Company is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”), collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), structured investment vehicles (“SIVs”) and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass through certificates. These matters include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company’s due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company’s communications with ratings agencies, the Company’s disclosures to investors, and the Company’s handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.

Class Actions. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company’s 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former

directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). In February 2008, these actions were consolidated in a single proceeding, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. The consolidated complaint relates in large part to the Company’s subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding the Company’s disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company’s common stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its common stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On December 9, 2009, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On March 16, 2011, a purported class action, styled Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., was filed in the SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company’s 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants knew or should have known that from January 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008, the plans’ investment in Company stock was imprudent given the extraordinary risks faced by the Company and its common stock during that period. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on October 28, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the SDNY. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company’s subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company’s disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in response to the court’s order of April 4, 2011. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), alleging, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in 2006 and 2007

contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. This case, which was consolidated with an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the SDNY. On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 10, 2010, that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a second amended complaint which purported to assert claims against the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively containing residential mortgage loans. The second amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleged, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On September 15, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs’ request to file another amended complaint. On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration of a portion of the court’s decision partially denying the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint purporting to bring claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased approximately $2.7 billion of mortgage pass through certificates issued in 2006 by five trusts. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 17, 2011.

Beginning in 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company’s exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued or sponsored the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers or sponsors (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.

In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to several offerings of debt and equity securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. during 2007 and 2008. The Company underwrote approximately $232 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On September 23, 2011, a group of underwriter defendants, including the Company,

reached an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs to settle the litigation. On December 15, 2011, the Court presiding over this action issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for April 12, 2012.

In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation is pending in the SDNY and relates to offerings of mortgage pass through certificates issued by seven trusts sponsored by affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp during 2006 and 2007. The Company underwrote over $1.4 billion of the principal amount of the offerings originally at issue. On June 21, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriter defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint. The Company underwrote approximately $46 million of the principal amount of the offerings at issue following the court’s June 21, 2010 decision. On May 17, 2010, certain putative plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene in the litigation in order to assert claims related to additional offerings. The principal amount of the additional offerings underwritten by the Company is approximately $1.2 billion. On June 21, 2011, the Company successfully opposed the motion to add the additional plaintiffs as to the Company. On July 20, 2011 and July 21, 2011, certain of the additional plaintiffs filed appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company is opposing the appeals.

Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, involves claims related to the Company’s role as an underwriter of various residential mortgage backed securities offerings issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corporation. The amended complaint includes allegations that the registration statements and the

offering documents contained false and misleading statements about the residential mortgage loans backing the securities. The Company underwrote approximately $6.3 billion of the principal amount of the offerings at issue. On January 6, 2010, the Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 18, 2011, a California court of appeals reversed the dismissal and reinstated the complaint. On December 19, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 3, 2012, defendants moved to stay the case pending resolution of a securities class action brought by the same plaintiffs, styled Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Other Litigation. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Cheyne Finance (the “Cheyne SIV”). The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs’ claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to reinstate their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty against

the Company. The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10, 2012. On January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012. On January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. There are 15 plaintiffs in this action asserting claims related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the SIV.

On September 25, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit styled Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, pending in the SDNY. The lawsuit relates to a credit default swap referencing the Capmark VI CDO, which was structured by Citibank, N.A. (“Citi N.A.”). At issue is whether, as part of the swap agreement, Citi N.A. was obligated to obtain the Company’s prior written consent before it exercised its rights to liquidate Capmark upon the occurrence of certain contractually-defined credit events. Citi N.A. is seeking approximately $245 million in compensatory damages plus interest and costs. On May 25, 2011, the court issued an order denying the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granting Citi N.A.’s cross motion for summary judgment. On June 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment against the Company for approximately $269 million plus post-judgment interest, and the Company filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which appeal is now pending.

On December 14, 2009, Central Mortgage Company (“CMC”) filed a complaint against the Company, in a matter styled Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleged that that Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC improperly refused to repurchase certain mortgage loans that CMC, as servicer, was required to repurchase from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”). On November 4, 2011, CMC filed an amended complaint adding claims related to its purchase of servicing rights in connection with approximately $4.1 billion of residential loans deposited into RMBS trusts sponsored by the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, quasi-contract, equitable and tort claims and seeks compensatory damages and equitable remedies, including rescission, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and disgorgement. On January 9, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

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

plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants’ omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company’s individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California. These actions are styled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al., respectively. Amended complaints were filed on June 10, 2010. The complaints allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $704 million and $276 million, respectively. The complaints raise claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On April 18, 2011, defendants in these actions filed an omnibus demurrer and motion to strike the amended complaints. On July 29, 2011 and September 8, 2011, the court presiding over both actions sustained defendants’ demurrers with respect to claims brought under the Securities Act, and overruled defendants’ demurrers with respect to all other claims.

On June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued by a SIV called Rhinebridge plc (“Rhinebridge SIV”). The case is styled King County, Washington, et al. v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS held by the SIV. On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was denied on October 29, 2010. On December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2012 and the Company moved to dismiss the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty claims on January 31, 2012. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. While reserving their ability to act otherwise, plaintiffs have indicated that they do not currently plan to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On July 9, 2010, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiff’s affiliates and alleges that

defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff’s affiliates’ clients by the Company was approximately $242 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed a second complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. et al. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of clients of plaintiff’s affiliates, and alleges that the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in selling certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued or underwritten by the Company or sold to plaintiff’s affiliates’ clients by the Company was approximately $102 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On October 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in each action. On November 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

On July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corp. filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, styled The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to one of plaintiff’s subsidiaries of a number

of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff’s subsidiary by the Company was approximately $180 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On October 13, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims brought under the Securities Act. On January 27, 2012, the court, in a ruling from the bench, substantially overruled defendants’ demurrers.

On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank (“CDIB”) filed a complaint against the Company, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The Complaint relates to a $275 million credit default swap referencing the super senior portion of the STACK 2006-1 CDO. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment and alleges that the Company misrepresented the risks of the STACK 2006-1 CDO to CDIB, and that the Company knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CDIB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CDIB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CDIB’s obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 21, 2011, the Company appealed the order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the Company’s motion to dismiss.

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants. One was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The other was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California and is styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. The complaints allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company in the two actions was approximately $203 million and $75 million respectively. The complaint filed in Illinois raises claims under Illinois law. The complaint filed in California raises claims under the federal securities laws, Illinois law and California law. Both complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the Court presiding over Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On May 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending. On September 15, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Securities LLC, et al. On December 1, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which demurrer is currently pending.

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $550 million. The complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Massachusetts consumer protection act and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and on June 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.

On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in New York State Supreme Court styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On September 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 14, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is currently pending.

On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, styled Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of the certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $153 million. The complaint raises claims under the Ohio Securities Act, federal securities laws, and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates.

On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including the Company. A complaint against the Company and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On September 26, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on October 26, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

On September 2, 2011, the FHFA, as conservator for Freddie Mac, also filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. General Electric Company et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $549 million. The complaint raises claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On October 6, 2011, defendants removed the action to the SDNY and on November 7, 2011, the FHFA moved to remand the action back to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each is styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleges that the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raise claims under both federal securities law and the Texas Securities Act and each seeks, among other things, compensatory damages associated with plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates.

On January 20, 2012, Sealink Funding Limited filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Sealink Funding Limited v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Plaintiff purports to be the assignee of claims of certain special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) formerly sponsored by SachsenLB Europe. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the SPVs of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold by the Company was approximately $556 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates.

On January 25, 2012, Dexia SA/NV and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Dexia SA/NV et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $680 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates.

On January 25, 2012, Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch filed a complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York styled Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company and/or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $486 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates.

Other Matters. On a case-by-case basis the Company has entered into agreements to toll the statute of limitations applicable to potential civil claims related to RMBS, CDOs and other mortgage-related products and services when the Company has concluded that it is in its interest to do so.

On October 18, 2011, the Company received a letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP (the “Law Firm”), which is purportedly representing a group of investment advisers and holders of mortgage pass through certificates issued by RMBS trusts that were sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The letter asserted that the Law Firm’s clients collectively hold 25% or more of the voting rights in 17 RMBS trusts sponsored or underwritten by the Company and that these trusts have an aggregate outstanding balance exceeding $6 billion. The letter alleged generally that large

numbers of mortgages in these trusts were sold or deposited into the trusts based on false and/or fraudulent representations and warranties by the mortgage originators, sellers and/or depositors. The letter also alleged generally that there is evidence suggesting that the Company has failed prudently to service mortgage loans in these trusts. On January 31, 2012, the Law Firm announced that its clients hold over 25% of the voting rights in 69 RMBS trusts securing over $25 billion of RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company, and that its clients had issued instructions to the trustees of these trusts to open investigations into allegedly ineligible mortgages held by these trusts. The Law Firm’s press release also indicated that the Law Firm’s clients anticipate that they may provide additional instructions to the trustees, as needed, to further the investigations.

On February 11, 2010, a shareholder derivative complaint styled Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement Fund, et al. v. John J. Mack et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint is purportedly for the benefit of the Company, and is brought against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company, to recover damages for alleged acts of corporate waste, breaches of the duty of loyalty, and unjust enrichment based on the amount of compensation awarded to an undefined group of employees for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2009. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of compensation, benefits and profits, and institution of certain corporate governance reforms. On December 9, 2010, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and on February 4, 2011, plaintiffs noticed an appeal of that dismissal, which appeal is pending.

As disclosed in February 2009, the Company uncovered actions initiated by an employee based in China in an overseas real estate subsidiary that appear to have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company terminated the employee, reported the activity to appropriate authorities and is cooperating with investigations by the United States Department of Justice and the SEC.

The following matters were terminated during the quarter ended December 31, 2011:

In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, involved claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007. The Company was one of several underwriters who participated in the offerings. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court. On November 4, 2011, a final settlement among the parties was approved by the court.

Employees’ Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, et al., which had been pending in the SDNY, involved claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment against the Company related to the Libertas III CDO. On November 3, 2011, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice.

MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Morgan Stanley, et al. which had been pending in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, involved claims for fraud, breach of contract and unjust

enrichment against the Company related to MBIA Insurance Corporation’s (“MBIA’s”) contract to insure approximately $223 million of residential mortgage pass through certificates related a second lien securitization sponsored by the Company in June 2007. On December 13, 2011, the Company and MBIA entered into an agreement to settle this litigation and to resolve certain claims that the Company had against MBIA.

Item 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Item 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

As of December 31, 2011, the percentage of assets allocated to each market sector was approximately as follows: Interest Rate 25.98%; Currency 30.59%; Equity 10.12%; and Commodity 33.31%.

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

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

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

There are no known material trends, demands, commitments, events, or uncertainties at the present time that are reasonably likely to result in the Partnership’s liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way.

Capital Resources. The Partnership does not have, nor does it expect to have, any capital assets. Redemptions of Units in the future will affect the amount of funds available for investments in futures, forwards and options in subsequent periods. It is not possible to estimate the amount, and therefore the impact, of future outflows of Units.

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

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

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

Graham currently trades its allocated portion of the Partnership’s assets pursuant to Graham’s Global Diversified Program, as described below, at 150% Leverage. The Global Diversified Program features the first trend system that Graham developed, which began trading client accounts in 1995. It utilizes multiple computerized trading models and offers broad diversification in both financial and non-financial markets, trading in approximately 65 global markets. The Global Diversified Program’s trend system is primarily long-term in nature and is intended to generate significant returns over time with an acceptable degree of risk and volatility. The computer models analyze on a daily basis analyze the recent price action, the relative strength and the risk characteristics of each market and compare statistically the quantitative results of this data to years of historical data on each market.

EMC currently trades its Classic Program for the Partnership. EMC’s investment strategies are technical rather than fundamental in nature. In other words, they are developed from analysis of patterns of actual monthly, weekly, and daily price movements and are not based on analysis of fundamental supply and demand factors, general economic factors, or anticipated world events. EMC relies on historical analysis of these price patterns to interpret current market behavior and to evaluate technical indicators for trade initiations and liquidations.

EMC’s investment strategies used in its program are trend-following. This means that initiation and liquidation of positions in a particular market are generally in the direction of the price trend in that market, although at times counter-trend elements also may be employed.

EMC employs an investment strategy which utilizes a blend of systems (or, stated another way, a number of systems simultaneously). The strategies are diversified in that its program follows a number of futures interests and often invests in more than ten different interests at one time.

Northfield trades the Diversified Program on behalf of the Partnership. The Diversified Program was conceived, tested, and refined by Northfield’s principals. The approach is fully computerized and nondiscretionary. Money management principles are a critical element of the Diversified Program and have been carefully constructed and are rigorously applied to minimize risk exposure and to protect asset appreciation.

Rabar trades its investment strategy on behalf of the Partnership. The objective of Rabar’s investment strategy is to generate capital appreciation over the long run by investing exclusively in futures interests, including exchange traded futures contracts, options on futures contracts, foreign currency forward contracts and, to a very limited extent, cash commodities. Rabar may also engage in exchange for physical transactions, more commonly referred to as “EFPs”. Rabar’s strategy employs a diversified, systematic, technical, and trend-following approach, utilizing a blend of several separate and distinct quantitative models.

Sunrise Capital trades the CIMCO Program on behalf of the Partnership. The CIMCO — Diversified Financial Program was designed by Sunrise Capital to participate exclusively in the highly liquid financial markets. This program trades the major currencies as outrights against the U.S. dollar and selectively against each other. Interest rate futures, both long and short term (including U.S. and non-U.S. bonds, notes, and euro products), stock indices, precious and industrial metals, and energy products are also traded in this program. These commodity interests are traded on futures exchanges but may also be traded in the interbank or cash markets when appropriate.

The following chart sets forth the percentage and the amount of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to each Trading Advisor for the period ending December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively, and the change during the applicable period.

The following presents a summary of the Partnership’s operations for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011, and a general discussion of its trading activities during each period. It is important to note, however, that the Trading Advisors trade in various markets at different times and that prior activity in a particular market does not mean that such market will be actively traded by the Trading Advisors or will be profitable in the future. Consequently, the results of operations of the Partnership are difficult to discuss other than in the context of the Trading Advisors’ trading activities on behalf of the Partnership during the period in question. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The Partnership’s results of operations set forth in the financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”), which require the use of certain accounting policies that affect the amounts reported in these financial statements, including the following: the contracts the Partnership trades are accounted for on a trade-date basis and marked to market on a daily basis. The difference between their original contract value and market value is recorded on the Statements of Income and Expenses as “Net change in unrealized trading profit (loss)” for open (unrealized) contracts, and recorded as “Net realized trading profit (loss)” when open positions are closed out. The sum of these amounts constitutes the

Partnership’s trading results. The market value of a futures contract is the settlement price on the exchange on which that futures contract is traded on a particular day. The value of a foreign currency forward contract is based on the spot rate as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.), the close of the business day. Interest income, as well as management fees, incentive fees, and brokerage fees of the Partnership are recorded on an accrual basis.

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

The Partnership recorded total trading results including interest income totaling $(37,128,215) and expenses totaling $30,729,534, resulting in a net loss of $67,857,749 for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Partnership’s net asset value per Unit decreased from $38.03 at December 31, 2010 to $31.24 at December 31, 2011. Total redemptions for the year were $55,248,703, and the Partnership’s ending capital was $286,144,408 at December 31, 2011, a decrease of $123,106,452 from ending capital at December 31, 2010, of $409,250,860.

The most significant trading losses during the year were recorded within the global stock index markets, primarily during March, May, and June. In March, long positions in European, U.S., and Pacific Rim equity index futures resulted in losses as prices reversed lower amid concern that heightened tensions in the Middle East, as well as the natural disaster and subsequent nuclear crisis in Japan, may threaten the global

economic recovery. In May, losses were incurred from long positions in European and U.S. equity index futures as prices moved lower on concerns the global economic recovery was faltering. Additional losses were incurred in this sector during June from long positions in European, U.S., and Pacific Rim equity index futures as prices continued to move lower. Within the agricultural sector, losses were incurred in September from long futures positions in corn and soybeans as prices declined on speculation that Europe’s sovereign debt crisis may hinder the global economy, reducing demand for the grains. Additionally, corn futures prices continued to decline after a U.S. government report revealed bigger-than-expected U.S. inventories. Further losses were recorded during March from long positions in cocoa as prices fell to a 10-week low on signs that the political turmoil that hampered exports may be easing in the Ivory Coast, the world’s biggest producer of cocoa. Within the currency sector, losses were incurred in May from long positions in the euro and British pound versus the U.S. dollar as the value of these currencies moved lower against the U.S. dollar after Standard & Poor’s downgraded Greece’s credit rating, prompting concern that the European sovereign debt crisis may escalate. Elsewhere, long positions in the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar resulted in losses as the value of these “commodity currencies” fell in tandem with declining commodity prices. Further losses were incurred during January from long positions in the Japanese yen and Australian dollar versus the U.S. dollar as the value of U.S. dollar moved higher following the release of minutes from the U.S. Federal Reserve meeting that showed optimism for the U.S. economy. Additionally, losses were incurred in August from long positions in the Australian dollar, New Zealand dollar, Japanese yen, and Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the U.S. dollar was boosted higher against these currencies by “safe haven” demand following central bank intervention in the Japanese yen and amid concerns related to the European debt crisis. Within the metals

sector, losses were incurred in May from long futures positions in base metals, primarily aluminum, as prices fell after China restricted bank lending, spurring speculation anti-inflation policies may slow growth in the world’s second-biggest economy and biggest purchaser of base metals. A portion of the Partnership’s losses for the year was offset by gains achieved within the global interest rate sector during July, August, and September from long positions in U.S. and European fixed income futures as prices rose on increased demand for the relative “safety” of government bonds due to concern about a faltering global economic recovery. Further gains were recorded during May from long positions in U.S. fixed-income futures as prices increased following reports that showed the U.S. economy grew less than forecast and U.S. jobless claims unexpectedly rose. Within the energy markets, gains were experienced during the first four months of the year from long positions in RBOB (unleaded) gas, gas oil, and heating oil as prices rose after protests in Egypt and Libya turned violent, prompting fear of contagion to other Middle Eastern and North African nations and causing concern that crude oil supplies may be disrupted.

The Partnership recorded total trading results including interest income totaling $34,009,565 and expenses totaling $36,722,512, resulting in a net loss of $2,712,947 for the year ended December 31, 2010. The Partnership’s net asset value per Unit increased from $37.96 at December 31, 2009, to $38.03 at December 31, 2010. Total redemptions for the year were $52,681,240, and the Partnership’s ending capital was $409,250,860 at December 31, 2010, a decrease of $55,394,187 from ending capital at December 31, 2009, of $464,645,047.

The most significant trading gains were experienced within the global interest rate sector from long positions in European, U.S., and Japanese fixed-income futures. In this sector, prices increased during the

first quarter on concerns that lending restrictions in China, possible reductions in U.S. stimulus measures, and Greece’s fiscal struggles might stifle the global economic rebound. Prices were then pressured higher during the second quarter amid an unexpected drop in U.S. consumer confidence, increased regulatory scrutiny of the financial industry, and the growing European debt crisis. During the third quarter, prices continued to climb higher due to concern that European governments may struggle to repay their debt and Chinese economic growth may be slowing. Within the agricultural complex, gains were experienced primarily during September, October, and December from long futures positions in the soybean complex and corn as prices increased after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said domestic and world supplies of these crops would be smaller than forecast and adverse weather threatened crops in South America. Further gains were recorded in October from long positions in sugar futures as prices rose amid worries that dry weather and port delays would curb shipments from Brazil, the world’s biggest producer of sugar. Within the currency markets, gains were achieved primarily during September, October, and December. During September, long positions in the Australian dollar versus the U.S. dollar and Canadian dollar resulted in gains as the value of the Australian dollar rose against these currencies amid speculation that the Reserve Bank of Australia may raise interest rates in October. Gains were also achieved during October from long positions in the Japanese yen, euro, and New Zealand dollar versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the U.S. dollar fell against these currencies after a report revealed U.S. private-sector employment unexpectedly dropped in September, fueling worries that the U.S. Federal Reserve would undertake additional quantitative easing. During December, short positions in the British pound versus the Australian dollar, Japanese yen, and Swiss franc resulted in gains as the value of the British pound declined against these currencies following lower-than-expected mortgage approval figures in the United Kingdom. In the metals

markets, gains were recorded primarily during March from long futures positions in nickel, copper, and aluminum as prices rose after China indicated it might boost state reserves of base metals. Throughout September, October, November, and December, long futures positions in silver and gold resulted in additional gains for the metals sector as prices rose amid increased demand for the precious metals due to a drop in the value of the U.S. dollar, with silver futures rallying to a 30-year high and gold prices reaching a new all-time high. A portion of the Partnership’s gains for the year was offset by losses recorded in the energy markets, primarily during January, from long futures positions in crude oil and its related products as prices declined amid speculation that China’s economic activity and energy demand may ease. Throughout May, long futures positions in crude oil and its related products resulted in additional losses as prices declined on continued worries that Europe’s debt troubles might slow down the global economic recovery and thereby weaken energy demand. Within the global stock index sector, losses were incurred primarily during January from long positions in European, U.S., and Pacific Rim equity index futures as prices moved lower amid disappointing U.S. corporate earnings reports and mounting concerns over sovereign debt defaults from a number of European countries. During May and June, further losses were incurred from long positions in European, U.S., and Japanese equity-index futures as prices moved lower on growing concerns that Greece’s sovereign debt crisis might spread throughout Europe. Additional losses were recorded during August from long positions in European and U.S. equity index futures as prices fell after the U.S. Federal Reserve said the pace of economic recovery is likely to be “more modest” than forecast and a report revealed U.S. productivity unexpectedly fell in the second quarter.

The Partnership recorded total trading results including interest income totaling $2,428,936 and expenses totaling $42,984,777, resulting in a net loss of $40,555,841 for the year ended December 31, 2009. The Partnership’s net asset value per Unit decreased from $40.80 at December 31, 2008, to $37.96 at December 31, 2009. Total redemptions for the year were $100,683,490, and the Partnership’s ending capital was $464,645,047 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $141,239,331 from ending capital at December 31, 2008, of $605,884,378.

The most significant trading losses of approximately 4.1% were incurred within the global interest rate sector, primarily during January, March, April, and June, from long positions in U.S., European, and Japanese fixed-income futures as prices dropped following news that debt sales might increase as governments around the world boosted spending in an effort to ease the deepening economic slump. Newly established short positions in European, U.S., and Japanese fixed-income futures resulted in further losses, primarily during July, as prices moved higher on investor sentiment that the slow pace of the global economic recovery and signs of moderate inflation might lead central banks in these regions to maintain low interest rates in the near term. Additional losses were recorded during August from newly established long positions in European fixed-income futures as prices reversed lower at the beginning of the month amid a rise in the European equity markets, thus reducing demand for the relative “safety” of government bonds. During December, further losses were incurred from long positions in U.S. and European fixed-income futures as prices fell sharply amid concern that an unprecedented supply of government bonds might outweigh demand as governments around the world were issuing record amounts of debt to finance economic stimulus measures. Losses of approximately 1.4% were experienced in the energy sector

primarily during July from short futures positions in crude oil and its related products as prices moved higher during the latter half of the month amid better-than-expected quarterly earnings reports and positive economic data. During August, newly established long futures positions in crude oil and its related products recorded additional losses as prices reversed lower due to above-average U.S. stockpiles. Further losses were incurred during October from long futures positions in crude oil and its related products as prices reversed lower after government reports showed U.S. consumer spending dropped for the first time in seven months. Additional losses of approximately 1.3% were recorded in the currency sector, primarily during March, from short positions in the Swiss franc and euro versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the U.S. dollar decreased relative to most of its rivals following the U.S. Federal Reserve’s surprise plans to begin a more aggressive phase of quantitative easing and economic stimulus spending. Additional losses were recorded during June and July from long positions in the Swiss franc and euro versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the U.S. dollar reversed higher against these currencies following better-than-expected U.S. payrolls and durable goods data. Elsewhere, long positions in the Mexican peso versus the U.S. dollar incurred losses, primarily during July and August, as the value of the Mexican peso declined on concerns that Mexico might take longer to recover from a recession than investors previously estimated. Long positions in the British pound versus the U.S. dollar also experienced losses as the British pound fell during August and September on news that U.K. consumer confidence rose to the highest level in more than a year and Bank of England officials indicated inflation might remain low. Lastly, losses were incurred from long positions in the Japanese yen versus the U.S. dollar primarily in December as the value of the U.S. dollar moved higher on speculation that the U.S. Federal Reserve might raise interest rates earlier than expected in the wake of positive economic data and consistent strength in the equity markets. Smaller

losses of approximately 0.1% were recorded in the agricultural complex primarily during June as coffee futures prices reversed lower and fell throughout a majority of the third quarter amid expectations of higher global output due to favorable weather conditions in the world’s major growing regions, thus resulting in losses from long positions. Elsewhere, losses were recorded from long and short futures positions in the soybean complex as prices moved without consistent direction during July and August amid conflicting reports regarding supply and demand. A portion of the Partnership’s losses was offset by gains of approximately 4.0% achieved within the metals complex, primarily during July and August, from long futures positions in copper as prices rose following news of an economic expansion in China during the second quarter of 2009, thereby spurring speculation that China’s demand for base metals might rise. In December, additional gains were recorded as prices of copper futures rose to a 15-month high after workers at the world’s second-biggest copper mine in Chile voted to go on strike, thereby threatening the global supply. Meanwhile, gains were achieved from long positions in gold futures primarily during October and November as prices rose due to concerns of a rise in inflation, as well as amid a drop in the value of the U.S. dollar, which spurred demand for the precious metal as an alternative investment. Lastly, gains of approximately 3.9% were recorded within the global stock index markets throughout July, August, and September from long positions in European, U.S., and Hong Kong equity index futures as prices increased due to positive economic data and increased merger and acquisition activity in the technology sector. Further gains were achieved from long positions in European and U.S. global stock index futures as prices continued to increase throughout November and December after positive economic data and strong corporate earnings reports reinforced optimism that the global economic recovery might be gaining momentum.

For an analysis of unrealized gains and (losses) by contract type and a further description of 2011 trading results, refer to the Partnership’s Annual Report to Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2011, which is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 13.01 of this Form 10-K.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For additional information, see the “Financial Instruments” section under “Notes to Financial Statements” in the Partnership’s Annual Report to Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2011, which is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 13.01 of this Form 10-K.

Financial instruments are carried at fair value, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. Assets and liabilities carried at fair value are classified and disclosed in the following three levels: Level 1 — unadjusted quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities; Level 2 — inputs other than unadjusted quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly (including quoted market prices for similar investments, interest rates and credit risk); and Level 3 — unobservable inputs for the asset or liability (including the Partnership’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments).

In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, an investment’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Partnership’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the investment.

The Partnership’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are summarized in the following tables by the type of inputs applicable to the fair value measurements.

The Partnership’s objective is to profit from speculative trading in Futures Interests. Therefore, the Trading Advisors for the Partnership will take speculative positions in Futures Interests where they feel the best profit opportunities exist for their trading strategy. As such, the average number of contracts outstanding in absolute quantity (the total of the open long and open short positions) has been presented as a part of the volume disclosure, as position direction is not an indicative factor in such volume disclosures. With regard to foreign currency forward trades, each notional quantity amount has been converted to an equivalent contract based upon an industry convention.

As of December 31, 2011, approximately 86.4% of the Partnership’s total investments are futures contracts which are exchange-traded while approximately 13.6% are forward contracts which are off-exchange traded.

The following tables summarize the valuation of the Partnership’s investments as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The Effect of Trading Activities on the Statements of Financial Condition as of December 31, 2011:

The Effect of Trading Activities on the Statements of Financial Condition as of December 31, 2010:

The following tables summarize the net trading results of the Partnership for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

The Effect of Trading Activities on the Statements of Income and Expenses for the year ended December 31, 2011 included in Total Trading Results:

Line Items on the Statements of Income and Expenses for the year ended December 31, 2011:

The Effect of Trading Activities on the Statements of Income and Expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010 included in Total Trading Results:

Line Items on the Statements of Income and Expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010:

The Effect of Trading Activities on the Statements of Income and Expenses for the year ended December 31, 2009 included in Total Trading Results:

Line Items on the Statements of Income and Expenses for the year ended December 31, 2009:

In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-11, “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities”, which creates a new disclosure requirement about the nature of an entity’s rights of setoff and the related arrangements associated with its financial instruments and derivative instruments. Entities are required to disclose both gross information and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. The objective of this disclosure is to facilitate comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The disclosure requirements are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. The Partnership should also provide the disclosures retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. The Partnership is currently evaluating the impact that the pronouncement would have on the financial statements.

In October 2011, the FASB issued a proposed ASU intended to improve and converge financial reporting by setting forth consistent criteria for determining whether an entity is an investment company. Under longstanding U.S. GAAP, investment companies carry all of their investments at fair value, even if they hold a controlling interest in another company. The primary changes being proposed by the FASB relate to which entities would be considered investment companies as well as certain disclosure and presentation requirements. In addition to the changes to the criteria for determining whether an entity is an investment company, the FASB also proposes that an investment company consolidate another investment company if it holds a controlling financial interest in the entity. The Partnership will evaluate the impact that this proposed update would have on the financial statements once the pronouncement is issued.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS.” The amendments within this ASU change the wording used to describe many of the requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements to eliminate unnecessary wording differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS. However, some of the amendments clarify the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements and other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The ASU is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011 for public entities. This new guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Partnership’s financial statements.

Management performed its evaluation of subsequent events and has determined that there were no subsequent events requiring adjustment or disclosure in the financial statements.

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

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

meet margin requirements equal to the net unrealized loss on open forward currency contracts in the Partnership accounts with the counterparty, which is accomplished by daily maintenance of the cash balance in a custody account held at MSSB for the benefit of MS&Co.

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

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

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

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

The following quantitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor from civil liability provided for such statements by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (set forth in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). All quantitative disclosures in this section are deemed to be forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor, except for statements of historical fact.

The Partnership accounts for open positions on the basis of fair value accounting principles. Any loss in the market value of the Partnership’s open positions is directly reflected in the Partnership’s earnings and cash flow.

The Partnership’s risk exposure in the market sectors traded by the Trading Advisors is estimated below in terms of VaR. Prior to June 30, 2011, the Partnership estimated VaR using a model based upon historical simulation (with a confidence level of 99%) which involved constructing a distribution of hypothetical daily changes in the value of a trading portfolio. The VaR model took into account linear exposures to risks including equity and commodity prices, interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and correlation among these variables. The hypothetical changes in portfolio value were based on daily percentage changes observed in key market indices or other market factors (“market risk factors”) to which the portfolio was sensitive. The one-day 99% confidence level of the Partnership’s VaR corresponded to the negative change in portfolio value that, based on observed market risk factors, would have been exceeded once in

100 trading days, or one day in 100. VaR typically does not represent the worst case outcome. Ceres used approximately four years of daily market data (1,000 observations) and re-valued its portfolio (using delta-gamma approximations) for each of the historical market moves that occurred over this time period. This generated a probability distribution of daily “simulated profit and loss” outcomes. The VaR is the appropriate percentile of this distribution. For example, the 99% one-day VaR would represent the 10th worst outcome from Ceres’ simulated profit and loss series.

The Partnership’s VaR computations are based on the risk representation of the underlying benchmark for each instrument or contract and do not distinguish between exchange and non-exchange dealer-based instruments. They are also not based on exchange and/or dealer-based maintenance margin requirements. VaR models, including the Partnership’s, are continually evolving as trading portfolios become more diverse and modeling techniques and systems capabilities improve. Please note that the VaR model is used to numerically quantify market risk for historic reporting purposes only and is not utilized by either Ceres or the Trading Advisors in their daily risk management activities. Please further note that VaR as described above may not be comparable to similarly-titled measures used by other entities.

Starting with the third quarter 2011, exchange maintenance margin requirements have been used by the Partnership as the measure of its VaR. Maintenance margin requirements are set by exchanges to equal or exceed the maximum losses reasonably expected to be incurred in the fair value of any given contract in 95% — 99% of any one-day interval. Maintenance margin has been used rather than the more generally available initial margin, because initial margin includes a credit risk component, which is not relevant to VaR.

The following tables indicate the trading VaR associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category as of December 31, 2011 and the highest, lowest and average values during the twelve months ended December 31, 2011. All open position trading risk exposure of the Partnership have been included in calculating the figures set forth below. As of December 31, 2011, the Partnership’s total capitalization was approximately $286 million.

The following table indicates the VaR associated with the Partnership’s open positions as a percentage of total Partner’s Capital by primary market risk category at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, the Partnership’s total capitalization was approximately $409 million.

The VaR for a market category represents the one-day downside risk for the aggregate exposures associated with this market category. The Aggregate Value at Risk listed above represents the VaR of the Partnership’s open positions across all the market categories, and is less than the sum of the VaRs for all such market categories due to the diversification benefit across asset classes.

Because the business of the Partnership is the speculative trading of futures, forwards and options on such contracts, the composition of its trading portfolio can change significantly over any given time period, or even within a single trading day. Such changes could positively or negatively materially impact market risk as measured by VaR.

The table below supplements the December 31, 2010 VaR set forth above by presenting the Partnership’s high, low, and average VaR, as a percentage of total net assets for the four quarter-end reporting periods from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

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

In addition, the VaR tables above, as well as the past performance of the Partnership, give no indication of the Partnership’s potential “risk of ruin”.

The VaR tables provided present the results of the Partnership’s VaR for each of the Partnership’s market risk exposures at December 31, 2011 and market risk exposure and on an aggregate basis at December 31, 2010, and for the four quarter-end reporting periods during calendar years 2011 and 2010. VaR is not necessarily representative of the Partnership’s historic risk, nor should it be used to predict the Partnership’s future financial performance or its ability to manage or monitor risk. There can be no assurance that the Partnership’s actual losses on a particular day will not exceed the VaR amounts indicated above or that such losses will not occur more than once in 100 trading days.

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

The Partnership also maintains a substantial portion of its available assets in cash at MSSB; as of December 31, 2011, such amount is equal to approximately 80% of the Partnership’s net asset value. A decline in short-term interest rates would result in a decline in the Partnership’s cash management income. This cash flow risk is not considered to be material.

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

The following qualitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures — except for (A) those disclosures that are statements of historical fact and (B) the descriptions of how the Partnership manages its primary market risk exposures — constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. The Partnership’s primary market risk exposures, as well as the strategies used and to be used by Ceres and the Trading Advisors for managing such exposures, are subject to numerous uncertainties, contingencies and risks, any any one of which could cause the actual results of the Partnership’s risk controls to differ materially from the objectives of such strategies. Government interventions, defaults and expropriations, illiquid markets, the emergence of dominant fundamental factors, political upheavals, changes in historical price

relationships, an influx of new market participants, increased regulation, and many other factors could result in material losses, as well as in material changes to the risk exposures and the risk management strategies of the Partnership. Investors must be prepared to lose all or substantially all of their investment in the Partnership.

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

The following were the primary trading risk exposures of the Partnership at December 31, 2011 by market sector. It may be anticipated, however, that these market exposures will vary materially over time.

Currencies. The Partnership’s currency exposure is to exchange rate fluctuations, primarily fluctuations which disrupt the historical pricing relationships between different currencies and currency pairs. These fluctuations are influenced by interest rate changes as well as political and general economic conditions. The General Partner does not anticipate that the risk profile of the Partnership’s currency sector will change significantly in the future.

Interest Rates. Interest rate movements directly affect the price of the futures positions held by the Partnership and indirectly the value of its stock index and currency positions. Interest rate movements in one country as well as relative interest rate movements between countries materially impact the

Partnership’s profitability. The Partnership’s primary interest rate exposure is to interest rate fluctuations in the United States and the other G-8 countries. However, the Partnership also take futures positions on the government debt of smaller nations — e.g., Australia.

Equities. The Partnership’s primary equity exposure is to equity price risk in the G-8 countries. The stock index futures traded by the Partnership are limited to futures on broadly based indices. As of December 31, 2011 the Partnership’s primary exposures were in the Topix (Japan), S&P 500 (U.S.), Dow Jones Industrials (U.S.), and Nikkei (Japan) stock indices. The Partnership is primarily exposed to the risk of adverse price trends or static markets in the major North American, European, and Pacific Rim indices. (Static markets would not cause major market changes but would make it difficult for the Partnership to avoid being “whipsawed” into numerous small losses.)

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

Metals. The Partnership’s primary metal market exposure as of December 31, 2011 was to fluctuations in the price of aluminum, copper, silver, and gold.

Softs. The Partnership’s trading risk exposure in the soft commodities is primarily to agricultural-related price movements which are often directly affected by severe or unexpected weather conditions. Cotton, cocoa, and sugar accounted for the majority of the Partnership’s soft commodities exposure as of December 31, 2011.

Grains. The Partnership’s trading risk exposure in the grains is primarily to agricultural price movements which are often directly affected by severe or unexpected weather conditions. The soybean complex, corn, and wheat accounted for the majority of the Partnership’s grain exposure as of December 31, 2011.

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

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

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

Item 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

As of the end of the period covered by this annual report, the President and Chief Financial Officer of Ceres have evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act), and have judged such controls and procedures to be effective.

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management assessed the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011. In making this assessment, Management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Based on our assessment and those criteria, Management believes that the Partnership maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011.

There have been no material changes during the period covered by this annual report in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act) that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to affect the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

Any control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide reasonable (not absolute) assurance that its objectives will be met. Furthermore, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected.

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

The officers and directors of the General Partner are Walter Davis (President and Chairman of the Board of Directors), Brian Centner (Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer), Colbert Narcisse (Director), Douglas J. Ketterer (Director), Ian Bernstein (Director), Harry Handler (Director), Patrick T. Egan (Director) and Alper Daglioglu (Director). Each director holds office until the earlier of his or her death, resignation or removal. Vacancies on the board of directors may be filled by either (i) the majority vote of the remaining directors or (ii) MSSBH, as the sole member of the General Partner. The officers of the General Partner are designated by the General Partner’s board of directors. Each officer will hold office until his or her successor is designated and qualified or until his or her death, resignation or removal.

Walter Davis, age 47, has been President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Partner since June 2010, where his responsibilities include oversight of the General Partner’s funds and accounts. Since June 2010, Mr. Davis has been a principal and registered as an associated person of the General Partner, and is an associate member of the NFA. Since June 2009, Mr. Davis has been employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley Smith Barney”), a financial services firm, where his responsibilities include serving as Managing Director and the Director of the Managed Futures Department. Since June 2009, Mr. Davis has been registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley

Smith Barney. From May 2006 through June 2010, Mr. Davis served as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Demeter Management LLC (“Demeter”), a registered commodity pool operator, where his responsibilities included oversight of Demeter’s funds and accounts. From May 2006 through December 2010, Mr. Davis was listed as a principal of Demeter, and from July 2006 through December 2010, Mr. Davis was registered as an associated person of Demeter. From April 2007 through June 2009, Mr. Davis was employed by Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS & Co.”), a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as the Managing Director and the Director of the Managed Futures Department. From April 2007 through June 2009, Mr. Davis was registered as an associated person of MS & Co. From August 2006 through April 2007, Mr. Davis was employed by Morgan Stanley DW Inc., a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as Managing Director and the Director of the Managed Futures Department. From August 2006 through April 2007, Mr. Davis was registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. From September 1999 through August 2006, Mr. Davis was employed by MS & Co., a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included oversight of the sales and marketing of MS & Co.’s managed futures funds to high net worth and institutional investors on a global basis. From January 1992 through September 1999, Mr. Davis was employed by Chase Manhattan Bank’s Alternative Investment Group, an alternative investment group, where his responsibilities included marketing managed futures funds to high net worth investors, as well as developing and structuring managed futures funds. Mr. Davis earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics in May 1987 from the University of the South and his Master of Business Administration in Finance and International Business in May 1992 from Columbia University Graduate School of Business.

Brian Centner, age 34, has been the Chief Financial Officer and a principal of the General Partner since September 2011. Since July 2009, Mr. Centner has been employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities include oversight of accounting and financial and regulatory reporting of the General Partner’s managed futures funds. From February 2003 through July 2009, Mr. Centner was employed by Citi Alternative Investments (“CAI”), a division of Citigroup, a financial services firm, which administered Citigroup’s hedge fund and fund of funds business, where he served as Senior Vice President responsible for the accounting and financial and regulatory reporting of CAI’s managed futures funds. From June 2002 through February 2003, Mr. Centner was employed by KPMG LLP, a U.S. audit, tax and advisory services firm, as a Senior Associate within the Investment Management division, where his responsibilities included performing audits and attestation services for financial services firms. From September 2000 through June 2002, Mr. Centner was employed by Arthur Andersen LLP, a U.S. audit, tax and advisory services firm, where he served in the Financial Services division and his responsibilities included performing audits and attestation services for financial services firms. Mr. Centner earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting in May 2000 from Binghamton University and his Master of Business Administration degree in May 2011 from New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business. Mr. Centner is a Certified Public Accountant.

Colbert Narcisse, age 45, has been a Director and a principal of the General Partner since December 2011. Since February 2011, Mr. Narcisse has been a Managing Director at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities have included serving as Head of the Alternative Investment Group, Head of the Corporate Equity Solutions Group, and Chief Operating Officer of the Investment Strategy and Client Solutions Division. From July 2009 until February 2011,

Mr. Narcisse served as Chief Executive Officer of Gold Bullion International, a business services company that enables retail investors to acquire, manage and store physical precious metals through their financial advisor. From March 2009 until July 2009, Mr. Narcisse took personal leave. From August 1990 until March 2009, Mr. Narcisse was employed by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as Chief Operating Officer of Americas Investment Banking, Chief Operating Officer of the Global Wealth Management Division, and as an investment banker in both the Financial Institutions and Public Finance Groups. From July 1987 until August 1990, Mr. Narcisse was employed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where his responsibilities included serving as a Bank Examiner. Additionally, Mr. Narcisse serves on the Board of Harlem RBI, as the Vice Chair of Finance for the Montclair Cooperative School Board of Trustees, as an Audit Committee Member of the New York City Housing Authority, and as a Member of the Executive Leadership Council. Mr. Narcisse received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance in June 1987 from New York University. He received his Master of Business Administration degree in July 1992 from Harvard Business School.

Douglas J. Ketterer, age 46, has been a Director and a principal of the General Partner since December 2010. From October 2003 through December 2010, Mr. Ketterer was listed as a principal of Demeter, a commodity pool operator, until Demeter’s combination with the General Partner. From July 2010 through the present, Mr. Ketterer has been employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, a financial services firm, as Managing Director and Head of the U.S. Private Wealth Management Group, where his responsibilities include overseeing the U.S. Private Wealth Management Group. From March 1990 through July 2010, Mr. Ketterer was employed by MS & Co., a financial services firm, where his

responsibilities included serving as Chief Operating Officer of the Wealth Management Group and Head of the Products Group. During Mr. Ketterer’s employment at MS & Co. his responsibilities included oversight over a number of departments including the Alternative Investments Group, the Consulting Services Group, the Annuities & Insurance Department, and the Retirement & Equity Solutions Group, which offered products and services through MS & Co.’s Global Wealth Management Group. Mr. Ketterer received his Master of Business Administration degree from New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business in January 1994 and his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance from the University at Albany’s School of Business in May 1987.

Ian Bernstein, age 49, has been a Director of the General Partner and listed as a principal of the General Partner since December 2010. From June 2009 through the present, Mr. Bernstein has been employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, a financial services firm, as Managing Director of Capital Markets, with oversight of risk and infrastructure, joint venture negotiations and integration. From April 2007 through the present, Mr. Bernstein has been employed by MS & Co., a financial services firm, where his responsibilities include serving as Managing Director of the Capital Markets group, the head of the Global Wealth Management group, and serving as market risk manager. From October 1984 through April 2007, Mr. Bernstein was employed by Morgan Stanley DW Inc., a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as a Repo trader, manager of the Repo trading desk, and Chief Operating Officer for fixed income. Mr. Bernstein also served as Managing Director of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. from March 2004 through April 2007. Mr. Bernstein earned his Bachelor of Arts in May 1980 from the University of Buckingham and his Master of Business Administration in May 1988 from New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business.

Harry Handler, age 52, has been a Director of the General Partner since December 2010. Since December 2010, Mr. Handler has been registered as an associated person and listed as a principal of the General Partner, and is an associate member of the NFA. Mr. Handler was listed as a principal of Demeter from May 2005, and was registered as an associated person of Demeter from April 2006, until Demeter’s combination with the General Partner in December 2010. Mr. Handler was registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley DW Inc., a financial services firm, from February 1984 until on or about April 2007, when, because of the merger of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. into MS & Co., he became registered as an associated person of MS & Co. due to the transfer of his original registration as an associated person of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. Mr. Handler withdrew as an associated person of MS & Co. in June 2009. Mr. Handler has been registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney since June 2009. Mr. Handler serves as an Executive Director at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney in the Global Wealth Management Group. Mr. Handler works in the Capital Markets Division and is responsible for Electronic Equity and Securities Lending. Additionally, Mr. Handler serves as Chairman of the Global Wealth Management Group’s Best Execution Committee. In his prior position, Mr. Handler was a Systems Director in Information Technology, in charge of Equity and Fixed Income Trading Systems along with the Special Products, such as Unit Trusts, Managed Futures, and Annuities. Prior to his transfer to the Information Technology Area, Mr. Handler managed the Foreign Currency and Precious Metals Trading Desk of Dean Witter, a financial services firm and predecessor company to Morgan Stanley, from July 1982 until January 1984. He also held various positions in the Futures Division where he helped to build the Precious Metals Trading Operation at Dean Witter. Before joining Dean Witter, Mr. Handler worked at Mocatta Metals, a precious metals trading firm and futures broker that was sold to Standard Charted Bank in the 1980’s, as an Assistant to the Chairman from March 1980

until June 1982. His roles at Mocatta Metals included positions on the Futures Order Entry Desk and the Commodities Exchange Trading Floor. Additional work included building a computerized Futures Trading System and writing a history of the company. Mr. Handler graduated on the Dean’s List from the University of Wisconsin-Madison with a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Science.

Patrick T. Egan, age 42, has been a Director of the General Partner since December 2010. Since December 2010, Mr. Egan has been a principal and registered as an associated person of the General Partner, and is an associate member of the NFA. Since June 2011, Mr. Egan has been employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities include serving as Executive Director and as Chief Risk Officer for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Managed Futures. From June 2009 through June 2011, Mr. Egan was employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, where his responsibilities included serving as Co-Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Managed Futures. Since November 2010, Mr. Egan has been registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. From April 2007 through June 2009, Mr. Egan was employed by MS & Co., a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as Head of Due Diligence and Manager Research for Morgan Stanley’s Managed Futures Department. From April 2007 through November 2010, Mr. Egan was registered as an associated person of MS & Co. From March 1993 through April 2007, Mr. Egan was employed by Morgan Stanley DW Inc., a financial services firm, where his initial responsibilities included serving as an analyst and manager within the Managed Futures Department (with primary responsibilities for product development, due diligence, investment analysis and risk management of the firm’s commodity pools) and later included serving as Head of Due Diligence and Manager Research for Morgan Stanley’s Managed Futures Department. From February

1998 through April 2007, Mr. Egan was registered as an associated person of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. From August 1991 through March 1993, Mr. Egan was employed by Dean Witter Intercapital, the asset management arm of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., where his responsibilities included serving as a mutual fund administration associate. Mr. Egan also served as a Director from November 2004 through October 2006, and from November 2006 through October 2008 of the Managed Funds Association’s Board of Directors, a position he was elected to by industry peers for two consecutive two-year terms. Mr. Egan earned his Bachelor of Business Administration degree with a concentration in Finance in May 1991 from the University of Notre Dame.

Alper Daglioglu, age 34, has been a Director and listed as a principal of the General Partner since December 2010. Since December 2010, Mr. Daglioglu has been employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities include serving as Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Managed Futures and serving on the Alternative Investments Product Review Committee of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s Alternative Investments Group. From June 2009 through December 2010, Mr. Daglioglu was employed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as a Senior Analyst in the Product Origination Group. From December 2003 through June 2009, Mr. Daglioglu was employed by Morgan Stanley, a financial services firm, where his responsibilities included serving as a Senior Analyst in the Product Origination Group, and serving as the lead investment analyst for Global Macro and Managed Futures strategies within Morgan Stanley Graystone Research Group from February 2007 through June 2009. Mr. Daglioglu earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering in June 2000 from Galatasaray University and his Master of Business Administration degree in Finance

in May 2003 from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst’s Isenberg School of Management. Mr. Daglioglu was awarded a full merit scholarship and research assistantship at the Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets during his graduate studies. In this capacity, he worked with various major financial institutions in performance monitoring, asset allocation and statistical analysis projects and specialized on alternative approaches to risk assessment for hedge funds and managed futures. Mr. Daglioglu wrote and published numerous research papers on alternative investments. Mr. Daglioglu is a Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst charterholder.

To the Partnership’s knowledge, all required Section 16(a) filings during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, were timely and correctly made.

The Partnership has not adopted a code of ethics that applies to the Partnership’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. The Partnership is operated by its general partner, Ceres. The President, Chief Financial Officer, and each member of the Board of Directors of Ceres are employees of Morgan Stanley or MSSB and are subject to the code of ethics adopted by Morgan Stanley, the text of which can be viewed on Morgan Stanley’s website at http://www.morganstanley.com/individual/ourcommitment/codeofconduct. html.

The Partnership is operated by its general partner, Ceres, and has no audit committee.

The Partnership has no directors and executive officers. As a limited partnership, the business of the Partnership is managed by Ceres, which is responsible for the administration of the business affairs of the Partnership but receives no compensation for such services.

Item 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

(a) Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners — At December 31, 2011, there were no persons known to be beneficial owners of more than 5 percent of the Units.

(b) Security Ownership of Management — At December 31, 2011, Ceres owned 99,481.769 Units of general partnership interest, representing a 1.09 percent interest in the Partnership.

Item 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Refer to Note 2 — “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”, Note 4 — “Related Party Transactions”, and Note 5 — “Trading Advisors” of “Notes to Financial Statements”, in the accompanying Annual Report to Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2011, which is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 13.01 of this Form 10-K. In its capacity as the Partnership’s retail commodity broker, MS&Co. received commodity brokerage fees (paid and accrued by the Partnership) of $21,431,854 for the year ended December 31, 2011.

MS&Co. on behalf of the Partnership, pays all accounting fees. The Partnership reimburses MS&Co. through the brokerage fees it pays, as discussed in the Notes to Financial Statements in the Annual Report to the Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2011.

(1) Audit Fees. The aggregate fees for professional services rendered by Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”) in connection with their audit of the Partnership’s financial statements and review of the financial statements included in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and in connection with statutory and regulatory filings were approximately $61,881 for the year ended December 31, 2011, and $60,411 for the year ended December 31, 2010.

(3) Tax Fees. The Partnership did not pay D&T any amounts in 2011 and 2010 for professional services in connection with tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning.

The following financial statements and report of independent registered public accounting firm, all appearing in the accompanying Annual Report to Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2011, are incorporated by reference to Exhibit 13.01 of this Form 10-K:

With the exception of the aforementioned information and the information incorporated in Items 7, 8, and 13, the Annual Report to Limited Partners for the year ended December 31, 2011, is not deemed to be filed with this report.

For the exhibits incorporated by reference or filed herewith to this report, refer to Exhibit Index on Pages E-1 to E-4.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

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

Pursuant to applicable securities laws and regulations, the Partnership is deemed to have complied with the reporting obligation relating to the submission of interactive data files in Exhibit 101 to this report and is not subject to liability under any anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws as long as the Partnership has made a good faith attempt to comply with the submission requirements and promptly amends the interactive data files after becoming aware that the interactive data files fails to comply with the submission requirements. Users of this data are advised that, pursuant to Rule 406T, these interactive data files are deemed not filed and otherwise are not subject to liability.


Ceres Managed Futures LLC
522 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY		10036
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)


Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered

None		None


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


DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE		1

Part I.

Item 1.	Business	2-7

Item 1A.	Risk Factors	7-8

Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	8

Item 2.	Properties	8

Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	9-34

Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	34

Part II.

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	35

Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	36

Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	37-61

Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	61-72

Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	73

Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	73

Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	74-76

Item 9B.	Other Information	76

Part III.

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	77-85

Item 11.	Executive Compensation	86

Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	86

Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	86

Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	87

Part IV.

Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	88


	For the Years Ended December 31,
	2011			2010			2009			2008		2007
	$			$			$			$		$
Total Trading Results including interest income		(37,128,215	)		34,009,565			2,428,936			218,426,776		84,240,950

Net Income (Loss)		(67,857,749	)		(2,712,947	)		(40,555,841	)		153,644,867		37,920,143

Net Income (Loss) Per Unit (Limited & General Partners)		(6.79	)		0.07			(2.84	)		9.56		2.18

Total Assets		294,516,833			421,279,811			471,841,125			636,444,887		533,911,805

Total Limited Partners’ Capital		283,036,281			404,921,242			459,902,047			599,790,920		517,496,723

Net Asset Value Per Unit		31.24			38.03			37.96			40.80		31.24


Trading Advisor	Allocations as of December 31, 2011 (%)			Allocations as of December 31, 2010 (%)			Allocations as of December 31, 2011($)		Allocations as of December 31, 2010 ($)		Change during the period

Sunrise		11.09	%		13.36	%		31,728,486		54,697,708		-41.99	%
EMC		14.93	%		16.24	%		42,736,108		66,469,112		-35.71	%
Rabar		22.24	%		22.04	%		63,642,556		90,188,985		-29.43	%
Northfield		11.74	%		10.41	%		33,585,852		42,605,318		-21.17	%
Graham		18.12	%		18.54	%		51,843,900		75,862,415		-31.66	%
Altis		21.88	%		19.41	%		62,607,506		79,427,322		-21.18	%


December 31, 2011	Unadjusted Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)	Total
	$		$		$	$
Assets
Futures		11,006,486		—	n/a		11,006,486
Forwards		—		729,350	n/a		729,350


Total Assets		11,006,486		729,350	n/a		11,735,836


Liabilities
Futures		3,707,388		—	n/a		3,707,388
Forwards		—		322,961	n/a		322,961


Total Liabilities		3,707,388		322,961	n/a		4,030,349


Unrealized currency loss							(1,303,588	)


*Net fair value		7,299,098		406,389	n/a		6,401,899


December 31, 2010	Unadjusted Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)	Total
	$		$		$	$
Assets
Futures		22,348,537		—	n/a		22,348,537
Forwards		—		3,248,292	n/a		3,248,292


Total Assets		22,348,537		3,248,292	n/a		25,596,829


Liabilities
Futures		4,839,789		—	n/a		4,839,789
Forwards		—		218,049	n/a		218,049


Total Liabilities		4,839,789		218,049	n/a		5,057,838


Unrealized currency loss							(735,824	)


*Net fair value		17,508,748		3,030,243	n/a		19,803,167


Futures and Forward Contracts	Long Unrealized Gain		Long Unrealized Loss			Short Unrealized Gain		Short Unrealized Loss			Net Unrealized Gain/(Loss)			Average number of contracts outstanding for the year (absolute quantity)
	$		$			$		$			$

Commodity		418,029		(822,942	)		4,381,649		(2,417,431	)		1,559,305			4,077
Equity		307,762		(7,656	)		94,660		(143,961	)		250,805			1,386
Foreign currency		739,841		(106,865	)		2,115,906		(300,292	)		2,448,590			7,744
Interest rate		3,538,706		(109,261	)		139,283		(121,941	)		3,446,787			7,073

Total		5,004,338		(1,046,724	)		6,731,498		(2,983,625	)		7,705,487


Unrealized currency loss												(1,303,588	)

Total net unrealized gain on open contracts												6,401,899


Type of Instrument	$

Commodity		(17,215,862	)
Equity		(27,174,382	)
Foreign currency		(11,400,426	)
Interest rate		19,104,345
Unrealized currency loss		(567,763	)

Total		(37,254,088	)


Trading Results	$

Net Realized		(23,852,820	)
Net change in unrealized		(13,401,268	)

Total Trading Results		(37,254,088	)


Type of Instrument	$

Commodity		10,078,791
Equity		(14,372,116	)
Foreign currency		13,050,193
Interest rate		24,513,376
Unrealized currency gain		31,129
Proceeds from Litigation		337,120

Total		33,638,493


Trading Results	$

Net Realized		25,513,507
Net change in unrealized		7,787,866
Proceeds from Litigation		337,120

Total Trading Results		33,638,493


Type of Instrument	$

Commodity		10,512,655
Equity		23,140,270
Foreign currency		(11,446,352	)
Interest rate		(20,962,448	)
Unrealized currency gain		768,289

Total		2,012,414


Trading Results	$

Net Realized		16,042,877
Net change in unrealized		(14,030,463	)

Total Trading Results		2,012,414


Primary Market Risk Category	VaR		% of Total Capitalization
Currency	$	13,024,311		4.55	%
Interest Rate		11,060,388		3.87	%
Equity		4,307,985		1.51	%
Commodity		14,181,413		4.96	%

Total	$	42,574,097		14.89	%


	Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2011
Market Sector	High VaR		Low VaR		Average VaR*
Currency	$	18,329,898	$	4,243,012	$	7,986,820
Interest Rate	$	11,060,388	$	2,334,453	$	4,662,626
Equity	$	10,612,203	$	2,560,198	$	3,790,165
Commodity	$	15,407,368	$	1,675,397	$	9,512,117


December 31, 2010

Primary Market Risk Category	High			Low			Average
Equity		(3.01	)%		(0.46	)%		(1.90	)%
Currency		(1.12	)		(0.39	)		(0.81	)
Interest Rate		(0.97	)		(0.25	)		(0.67	)
Commodity		(3.93	)		(0.94	)		(2.28	)
Aggregate Value at Risk		(5.76	)%		(1.55	)%		(4.19	)%


Quarter Ended	Total Trading Results including interest income			Net Income/(Loss)			Net Income/ (Loss) Per Unit

2011
March 31	$	(7,630,025	)	$	(16,840,726	)	$	(1.59	)
June 30		(15,477,738	)		(24,315,962	)		(2.41	)
September 30		4,518,037			(2,168,780	)		(0.24	)
December 31		(18,538,489	)		(24,532,281	)		(2.55	)


Total	$	(37,128,215	)	$	(67,857,749	)	$	(6.79	)


2010
March 31	$	(12,258,341	)	$	(21,387,532	)	$	(1.74	)
June 30		(22,545,550	)		(31,288,554	)		(2.65	)
September 30		30,451,831			22,055,734			1.94
December 31		38,361,625			27,907,405			2.52


Total	$	34,009,565		$	(2,712,947	)	$	0.07


Primary Market Risk Category	December 31, 2010 VaR
Equity		(1.48	)%
Currency		(1.01	)
Interest Rate		(0.25	)
Commodity		(3.93	)
Aggregate Value at Risk		(5.76	)%


	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P.
	(Registrant)

	By:	Ceres Managed Futures LLC
		(General Partner)

March 28, 2012	By:	/s/ Walter Davis
		Walter Davis,
		President


BY:	/s/ Walter Davis	March 28, 2012
	Walter Davis, President, Director

	/s/ Brian Centner	March 28, 2012
	Brian Centner, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer

	/s/ Ian Bernstein	March 28, 2012
	Ian Bernstein, Director

	/s/ Alper Daglioglu	March 28, 2012
	Alper Daglioglu, Director

	/s/ Patrick T. Egan	March 28, 2012
	Patrick T. Egan, Director

	/s/ Harry Handler	March 28, 2012
	Harry Handler, Director

	/s/ Douglas J. Ketterer	March 28, 2012
	Douglas J. Ketterer, Director

	/s/ Colbert Narcisse	March 28, 2012
	Colbert Narcisse, Director


ITEM

3.01		Form of Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of the Partnership is incorporated by reference to Exhibit A of the Partnership’s Prospectus, dated May 1, 2008, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) under the Securities Act of 1933 on May 8, 2008.

3.01(a)		Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of the Partnership, dated May 31, 2009, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.01(a) of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2009.

3.02		Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated March 19, 1991, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.02 of the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-47829) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 1998.

3.03		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated April 28, 1998 (changing its name from Dean Witter Select Futures Fund L.P.), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.03 of the Partnership’s 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 1999.

3.04		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated April 6, 1999 (changing its name from Dean Witter Spectrum Select L.P.), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.03 of the Partnership’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-68773) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 1999.

3.05		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated November 1, 2001 (changing its name from Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Spectrum Select L.P.), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.01 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

3.06		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated June 1, 2009, (changing the name and mailing address of the general partner of the Partnership), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.06 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2009.

3.07		Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited Partnership, dated September 29, 2009 (changing its name from Morgan Stanley Spectrum Select L.P. to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.), is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.07 of the Partnership’s form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2009.



10.01		Amended and Restated Management Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1998, among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Rabar Market Research, Inc. is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 of the Partnership’s Form 10-K (File No. 0-19511) for fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 1999.

10.01(a)		Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Rabar Market Research, Inc., dated as of October 3, 2006, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01(a) of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2006.

10.01(b)		Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Rabar Market Research, Inc., dated as of May 9, 2011, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01(b) of the Partnership’s Form 10-Q (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2011.

10.02		Amended and Restated Management Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1998, among the Partnership, the General Partner, and EMC Capital Management, Inc., is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.02 of the Partnership’s Form 10-K (File No. 0-19511) for fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 1999.

10.02(a)		Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, and EMC Capital Management, Inc., dated as of October 3, 2006, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.02(a) of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2006.

10.02(b)		Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, and EMC Capital Management, Inc., dated as of May 9, 2011, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.02(b) of the Partnership’s Form 10-Q (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2011.

10.03		Amended and Restated Management Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1998, among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Sunrise Capital Management, Inc., is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.03 of the Partnership’s Form 10-K (File No. 0-19511) for fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 1999.

10.03(a)		Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Sunrise Capital Management Inc., dated as of December 7, 2010 is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.03(a) of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2011.



10.04		Management Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2004, among the Partnership, Demeter, and Graham Capital Management, L.P., is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.04 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2004.

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

10.10		Escrow Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2007, among The Bank of New York, the General Partner, and Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007.

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

10.12		Amended and Restated Customer Agreement between the Partnership and Morgan Stanley DW, dated as of October 16, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.12(a)		Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Customer Agreement between the Partnership and Morgan Stanley DW Inc., dated July 1, 2005, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12(a) of the Partnership’s Form 10-Q (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2005.

10.13		Commodity Futures Customer Agreement between MS&Co. and the Partnership, and acknowledged and agreed to by Morgan Stanley DW, dated as of June 6, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.02 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.14		Customer Agreement between the Partnership and MSIP dated as of June 6, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.04 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.15		Foreign Exchange and Options Master Agreement between MS&Co. and the Partnership, dated as of April 30, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.05 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.



10.16		Management Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2001, among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Northfield Trading L.P., is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.01 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2001.

10.16(a)		Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Northfield Trading L.P., dated as of May 9, 2011, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.16(a) of the Partnership’s Form 10-Q (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2011.

10.17		Securities Account Control Agreement between the Partnership and MS&Co., dated as of May 1, 2000, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.03 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2001.

10.19		Management Agreement, dated as of October 9, 2007, among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.19 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2007.

10.19(a)		Amendment No. 1 to Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, and Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited, dated as of July 28, 2008, is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.19 of the Partnership’s Form 8-K (File No. 0-19511) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2008.

13.01		December 31, 2011 Annual Report to Limited Partners is filed herewith.

31.01		Certification of President of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.02		Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.01		Certification of President of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.02		Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.