COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P. - FORM 10-Q

Attached files

file	filename
EXCEL - IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	Financial_Report.xls
EX-32.2 - EX-32.2 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d754627dex322.htm
EX-31.2 - EX-31.2 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d754627dex312.htm
EX-31.1 - EX-31.1 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d754627dex311.htm
EX-32.1 - EX-32.1 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d754627dex321.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(X) QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014

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

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 0-54753

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

20-4267496

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

c/o Ceres Managed Futures LLC

522 Fifth Avenue — 14^th Floor

New York, New York 10036

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(855) 672-4468

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Yes X No

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

Yes X No

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


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

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

Yes No X

As of July 31, 2014, 14,234.5618 Class A Limited Partnership Redeemable Units were outstanding and 208.7339 Class Z Limited Partnership Redeemable Units were outstanding.

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.

FORM 10-Q

INDEX


			Page
PART I - Financial Information:			Number

	Item 1.	Financial Statements:

		Statements of Financial Condition at June 30, 2014 (unaudited) and December 31, 2013	3

		Schedules of Investments at June 30, 2014 (unaudited) and December 31, 2013	4–5

		Statements of Income and Expenses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (unaudited)	6

		Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 (unaudited)	7

		Notes to Financial Statements (unaudited)	8–20

	Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	21–23

	Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	24–27

	Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	28

PART II - Other Information

	Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	29–32

	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	33

	Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	33

	Item 5.	Other Information	34

	Item 6.	Exhibits	35–37

PART I

Item 1. Financial Statements

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Statements of Financial Condition


	(Unaudited)
	June 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Assets:
Investment in Funds, at fair value (cost $18,801,685 and $27,336,385)	$	19,834,953	$	29,461,787
Interest receivable		338		323
Cash		123,553		116,377

Total assets	$	19,958,844	$	29,578,487


Liabilities and Partners’ Capital:
Liabilities:
Accrued expenses:
Ongoing selling agent fee	$	32,207	$	48,238
Management fees		27,208		40,322
Administrative fees		16,515		24,562
Incentive fees		—		26,225
Other		140,466		104,222
Redemptions payable		939,929		1,669,149

Total liabilities		1,156,325		1,912,718


Partners’ Capital:
General Partner, Class A, 0.0000 unit equivalents outstanding at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013		—		—
General Partner, Class Z, 353.4080 unit equivalents outstanding at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013		310,076		333,313
Limited Partners, Class A, 14,088.1818 and 19,230.1268 Redeemable Units outstanding at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively		18,309,303		27,135,591
Limited Partners, Class Z, 208.7339 Redeemable Units outstanding at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013		183,140		196,865

Total partners’ capital		18,802,519		27,665,769

Total liabilities and partners’ capital	$	19,958,844	$	29,578,487

Class A, net asset value per Redeemable Unit	$	1,299.62	$	1,411.10

Class Z, net asset value per Redeemable Unit	$	877.39	$	943.14

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Schedule of Investments

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)


	Cost		Fair Value		% of Partners’ Capital
Investment in Funds
MB Master Fund L.P.	$	6,170,787	$	6,429,108		34.19	%
KR Master Fund L.P.		2,419,561		2,166,527		11.52
JEM Master Fund L.P.		10,211,337		11,239,318		59.78

Total investment in Funds, at fair value	$	18,801,685	$	19,834,953		105.49	%

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Schedule of Investments

December 31, 2013


	Cost		Fair Value		% of Partners’ Capital
Investment in Funds
MB Master Fund L.P.	$	10,520,279	$	11,037,122		39.89	%
KR Master Fund L.P.		5,893,127		5,032,058		18.19
JEM Master Fund L.P.		10,922,979		13,392,607		48.41

Total investment in Funds, at fair value	$	27,336,385	$	29,461,787		106.49	%

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Statements of Income and Expenses

(Unaudited)


	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2014			2013			2014			2013
Investment income:
Interest income from investment in Funds	$	857		$	1,997		$	2,941		$	7,130

Expenses:
Ongoing selling agent fees		101,631			159,563			231,940			320,098
Management fees		86,367			150,466			194,696			306,532
Administrative fees		52,061			82,264			118,505			167,935
Incentive fees		—			52,192			—			86,061
Other		74,781			66,249			169,281			364,511

Total expenses		314,840			510,734			714,422			1,245,137

Net investment income (loss)		(313,983	)		(508,737	)		(711,481	)		(1,238,007	)

Trading Results:
Net gains (losses) on trading of commodity interests and investment in Funds:
Net realized gains (losses) on investment in Funds		50,573			310,640			(212,681	)		257,261
Change in net unrealized gains (losses) on investment in Funds		(326,799	)		(145,336	)		(1,092,134	)		(177,992	)

Total trading results		(276,226	)		165,304			(1,304,815	)		79,269

Net income (loss)	$	(590,209	)	$	(343,433	)	$	(2,016,296	)	$	(1,158,738	)

Net income (loss) allocation by class:
Class A	$	(578,530	)	$	(337,914	)	$	(1,979,334	)	$	(1,111,672	)

Class Z	$	(11,679	)	$	(5,519	)	$	(36,962	)	$	(47,066	)

Net asset value per unit
Class A (14,088.1818 and 21,402.6118 Redeemable Units outstanding as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively)	$	1,299.62		$	1,402.70		$	1,299.62		$	1,402.70

Class Z (562.1419 Redeemable Units outstanding as of June 30, 2014 and 2013)	$	877.39		$	928.15		$	877.39		$	928.15

Net income (loss) per unit*
Class A	$	(37.46	)	$	(14.96	)	$	(111.48	)	$	(49.91	)

Class Z	$	(20.77	)	$	(5.18	)	$	(65.75	)	$	(23.42	)

Weighted average units outstanding
Class A		15,428.3768			22,557.7628			17,204.9135			22,393.1167

Class Z		562.1419			1,063.1419			562.1419			1,671.6419

*Based on change in net asset value per unit.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital

For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2014 and 2013

(Unaudited)


	Class A						Class Z						Total
	Amount			Units			Amount			Units			Amount			Units
Partners’ Capital, December 31, 2013	$	27,135,591			19,230.1268		$	530,178			562.1419		$	27,665,769			19,792.2687
Subscriptions — Limited Partners		1,790,372			1,308.6900			—			—			1,790,372			1,308.6900
Net income (loss)		(1,979,334	)		—			(36,962	)		—			(2,016,296	)		—
Redemptions — Limited Partners		(8,637,326	)		(6,450.6350	)		—			—			(8,637,326	)		(6,450.6350	)

Partners’ Capital, June 30, 2014	$	18,309,303			14,088.1818		$	493,216			562.1419		$	18,802,519			14,650.3237


	Class A						Class Z						Total
	Amount			Units			Amount			Units			Amount			Units
Partners’ Capital, December 31, 2012	$	32,971,770			22,698.2288		$	2,169,677			2,280.1419		$	35,141,447			24,978.3707
Subscriptions — Limited Partners		3,345,573			2,339.4960			—			—			3,345,573			2,339.4960
Net income (loss)		(1,111,672	)		—			(47,066	)		—			(1,158,738	)		—
Redemptions — General Partner		—			—			(1,600,861	)		(1,718.0000	)		(1,600,861	)		(1,718.0000	)
Redemptions — Limited Partners		(5,184,124	)		(3,635.1130	)		—			—			(5,184,124	)		(3,635.1130	)

Partners’ Capital, June 30, 2013	$	30,021,547			21,402.6118		$	521,750			562.1419		$	30,543,297			21,964.7537

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

1. General:

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. (formerly known as “Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P.”) (the “Partnership”) is a limited partnership which was organized on January 30, 2006, under the limited partnership laws of the State of Delaware. The Partnership commenced trading on October 1, 2006. Between October 1, 2006 and May 1, 2011, the Partnership was operated pursuant to CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(4). Prior to May 1, 2011, the Partnership’s investment objective was to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, primarily in energy related investments, including, without limitation, energy futures, energy forwards, options, swaps and other over-the-counter (“OTC”) instruments and securities of energy related companies. Also, prior to May 1, 2011, the Partnership pursued its objective by allocating its capital among various energy focused portfolio managers, each of which had an individual trading strategy, primarily through investments in collective investment vehicles, including those operated by the General Partner (defined below) and, occasionally, through individually managed accounts.

The current objective of the Partnership is to achieve capital appreciation through speculative trading, directly and indirectly, in U.S. and international markets for currencies, interest rates, stock indices, agricultural and energy products and precious and base metals. The Partnership may employ futures, options on futures and forward contracts in those markets. The Partnership may also engage in spot, swap and other derivative transactions with the approval of the General Partner. The commodity interests that are traded by the Partnership, through its investment in the Funds (as defined in note 5 “Investment in Funds”), are volatile and involve a high degree of market risk.

Between June 23, 2006 (commencement of the initial offering period) and October 1, 2006, 9,475 redeemable units of limited partnership interest (“Redeemable Units”) were sold at $1,000 per Redeemable Unit. The Partnership commenced its operations on October 1, 2006. The Partnership privately and continuously offers Redeemable Units to qualified investors. There is no maximum number of Redeemable Units that may be sold by the Partnership.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, acts as the general partner (the “General Partner”) and commodity pool operator of the Partnership. The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC (“MSSB Holdings”). MSSB Holdings is ultimately owned by Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley is a publicly held company whose shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Morgan Stanley is engaged in various financial services and other businesses. Prior to June 28, 2013, Morgan Stanley indirectly owned a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings, and Citigroup Inc. indirectly owned a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Prior to July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB Holdings became its owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by Citigroup Financial Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is Citigroup Inc.

From inception until March 31, 2011, the Partnership offered two classes of Redeemable Units: “Class A” Redeemable Units and “Class B” Redeemable Units. As of March 31, 2011, the Partnership no longer offered Class B Redeemable Units. Beginning May 1, 2011, the Partnership began to offer two additional classes of Redeemable Units in addition to Class A Redeemable Units: “Class D” and “Class Z” Redeemable Units. Class Z Redeemable Units were first issued on October 1, 2011. As of June 30, 2014, there were no Class D Redeemable Units outstanding. Class A Redeemable Units, Class D Redeemable Units and Class Z Redeemable Units will each be referred to as a “Class” and collectively referred to as the “Classes.” The class of Redeemable Units that a limited partner receives upon a subscription will generally depend upon the amount invested in the Partnership or the status of the limited partner, although the General Partner may determine to offer any class of Redeemable Units to investors at its discretion. Class Z Redeemable Units are offered to certain employees of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (d/b/a Morgan Stanley Wealth Management) and its affiliates (and their family members).

During the six months ended June 30, 2014, the Partnership’s commodity broker was Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”), a registered futures commission merchant. During prior periods included in this report, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“CGM”) also served as a commodity broker.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

As of June 30, 2014 , all trading decisions were made for the Partnership by its three trading advisors (each an “Advisor”, and collectively the “Advisors”). JE Moody & Company LLC (“JE Moody”), Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited (“Krom River Management”) and Krom River Trading A.G. (“Krom River Trading” and together with Krom River Management, “Krom River”) and Aventis Asset Management, LLC (formerly known as Misfit Financial Group, LLC) (“Aventis”) have been selected by the General Partner as the major commodity trading advisors to the Partnership. In addition, the General Partner allocated the Partnership’s assets to additional non-major trading advisors (i.e., commodity trading advisors allocated less than 10% of the Partnership’s assets) during the reporting period. Information about advisors that are allocated less than 10% of the Partnership’s assets may not be disclosed. The General Partner may allocate less than 10% of the Partnership’s assets to a new trading advisor or another trading program of a current Advisor at any time. The Advisors are not affiliated with one another, are not affiliated with the General Partner, MS&Co. or CGM and are not responsible for the organization or operation of the Partnership. The General Partner will generally allocate the assets of the Partnership to “established” trading advisors (i.e., advisors with established trading strategies), but may also allocate assets to “emerging” trading advisors (i.e., trading advisors in the process of developing and refining their trading strategies). The General Partner has selected and will select commodity trading advisors for the Partnership that it believes possess the potential to be successful traders. The Advisors have various levels of experience in speculatively trading commodity interests and have various levels of experience in managing client funds.

Each Advisor is allocated a portion of the Partnership’s assets to manage. The Partnership invests the portion of its assets allocated to each of the Advisors indirectly through investment in the Funds (defined below).

During the third quarter of 2013, KR Master Fund L.P. (“KR Master”) and MB Master Fund L.P. (“MB Master”) entered into a futures brokerage account agreement with MS&Co. KR Master and MB Master commenced futures trading through an account at MS&Co. on or about August 5, 2013, and August 19, 2013, respectively. JEM Master Fund L.P. (“JEM Master”) entered into a futures account agreement with MS&Co. and commenced trading through an account at MS&Co. on or about October 10, 2013. The Partnership entered into a futures brokerage account agreement with MS&Co. and began transferring the brokerage account of the Partnership from CGM to MS&Co. on or about October 29, 2013. The Partnership, through its investment in the Funds (defined below), pays MS&Co. trading fees for the clearing and, where applicable, execution of transactions.

Effective March 1, 2014, the management fee paid to Aventis was reduced from an annual rate of 1.50% per year to an annual rate of 1.25% per year.

The General Partner and each limited partner share in the profits and losses of the Partnership in proportion to the amount of Partnership interest owned by each, except that no limited partner shall be liable for obligations of the Partnership in excess of its capital contribution and profits, if any, net of distributions and losses, if any.

The accompanying financial statements and accompanying notes are unaudited but, in the opinion of the General Partner, include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the Partnership’s financial condition at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the results of its operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 and changes in partners’ capital for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013. These financial statements present the results of interim periods and do not include all disclosures normally provided in annual financial statements. These financial statements should be read together with the financial statements and notes included in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for the year ended December 31, 2013.

The preparation of financial statements and accompanying notes in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires the General Partner to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, income and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities in the financial statements and accompanying notes. As a result, actual results could differ from these estimates.

Due to the nature of commodity trading, the results of operations for the interim periods presented should not be considered indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

2. Financial Highlights:

Changes in the net asset value per unit for each Class for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 were as follows:


	Three Months Ended June 30, 2014						Three Months Ended June 30, 2013						Six Months Ended June 30, 2014						Six Months Ended June 30, 2013
	Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z
Net realized and unrealized gains (losses) ¹	$	(24.05	)	$	(11.75	)	$	0.05		$	4.69		$	(84.26	)	$	(47.48	)	$	(10.95	)	$	2.18
Interest Income		0.06			0.04			0.09			0.06			0.17			0.11			0.31			0.21
Expenses ²		(13.47	)		(9.06	)		(15.10	)		(9.93	)		(27.39	)		(18.38	)		(39.27	)		(25.81	)

Increase (decrease) for the period		(37.46	)		(20.77	)		(14.96	)		(5.18	)		(111.48	)		(65.75	)		(49.91	)		(23.42	)
Net asset value per unit, beginning of period		1,337.08			898.16			1,417.66			933.33			1,411.10			943.14			1,452.61			951.57

Net asset value per unit, end of period	$	1,299.62		$	877.39		$	1,402.70		$	928.15		$	1,299.62		$	877.39		$	1,402.70		$	928.15

Includes Partnership ongoing selling agent fees (Class A only). Net realized and unrealized gains (losses) excluding ongoing selling agent fees for the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 and for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 for Class A Redeemable Units were $(17.46), $7.12, $(70.81), and $3.35, respectively.

Excludes Partnership ongoing selling agent fees (Class A only). Total expenses including ongoing selling agent fees for the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 and for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 for Class A Redeemable Units were $(20.06), $(22.17), $(40.84), and $(53.57), respectively.


	Three Months Ended June 30, 2014						Three Months Ended June 30, 2013						Six Months Ended June 30, 2014						Six Months Ended June 30, 2013
	Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z
Ratios to average net assets:³
Net investment income (loss)		(6.3	)%		(4.1	)%		(6.0	)%		(7.1	)%		(6.3	)%		(4.1	)%		(7.5	)%		(17.0	)%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		0.2	%		0.3	%		—	%		—	%		0.3	%		0.7	%

Net investment income (loss) before incentive fees ⁴		(6.3	)%		(4.1	)%		(5.8	)%		(6.8	)%		(6.3	)%		(4.1	)%		(7.2	)%		(16.3	)%

Operating expenses		6.3	%		4.1	%		5.8	%		6.8	%		6.3	%		4.1	%		7.2	%		16.4	%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		0.2	%		0.3	%		—	%		—	%		0.3	%		0.7	%

Total expenses		6.3	%		4.1	%		6.0	%		7.1	%		6.3	%		4.1	%		7.5	%		17.1	%

Total return:
Total return before incentive fees		(2.8	)%		(2.3	)%		(0.9	)%		(0.2	)%		(7.9	)%		(7.0	)%		(3.2	)%		(1.8	)%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		(0.2	)%		(0.4	)%		—	%		—	%		(0.2	)%		(0.7	)%

Total return after incentive fees		(2.8	)%		(2.3	)%		(1.1	)%		(0.6	)%		(7.9	)%		(7.0	)%		(3.4	)%		(2.5	)%

³	Annualized (except for incentive fees).

⁴	Interest income less total expenses.

The above capital ratios may vary for individual investors based on the timing of capital transactions during the period. Additionally, these ratios are calculated for the limited partner class using each limited partner’s share of income, expenses and average net assets.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

3. Trading Activities:

The Partnership was formed for the purpose of trading contracts in a variety of commodity interests, including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments. However, the Partnership’s investments are in other funds. The results of the Partnership’s trading activities from its investments in the Funds are shown in the Statements of Income and Expenses.

The customer agreement among the Partnership, MS&Co. and the Funds gives the Partnership and the Funds, and the customer agreements between CGM and each of the Funds gave the Funds, the legal right to net unrealized gains and losses on open futures and open forward contracts. The Funds net, for financial reporting purposes, the unrealized gains and losses on open futures and open forward contracts on the Statements of Financial Condition as the criteria under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 210-20, “Balance Sheet,” have been met.

All commodity interests owned by the Funds are held for trading purposes.

Trading and transaction fees are based on the number of trades executed by the Advisors for the Funds and the Partnership’s percentage ownership in each of the respective Funds.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

4. Fair Value Measurements:

Partnership’s and the Funds’ Investments. All commodity interests held by the Partnership (including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments), through its investment in the Funds, are held for trading purposes. The commodity interests are recorded on trade date and open contracts are recorded at fair value (as described below) at the measurement date. Investments in commodity interests denominated in foreign currencies are translated into U.S. dollars at the exchange rates prevailing at the measurement date. Gains or losses are realized when contracts are liquidated. Unrealized gains or losses on open contracts are included as a component of equity in trading account on the Funds’ Statements of Financial Condition. Net realized gains or losses and any change in net unrealized gains or losses from the preceding period are reported in the Funds’ Statements of Income and Expenses.

Partnership’s and the Funds’ Fair Value Measurements. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to fair values derived from unobservable inputs (Level 3). The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. The General Partner has concluded that based on available information in the marketplace, the Funds’ Level 1 assets and liabilities are actively traded.

GAAP also requires the use of judgment in determining if a formerly active market has become inactive and in determining fair values when the market has become inactive. The General Partner has concluded that based on available information in the marketplace, there has not been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity in the Partnership’s and the Funds’ Level 2 assets and liabilities.

The Partnership and the Funds will separately present purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in their reconciliation of Level 3 fair value measurements (i.e., to present such items on a gross basis rather than on a net basis), and make disclosures regarding the level of disaggregation as well as the inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value for measurements that fall within either Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy as required under GAAP.

On October 1, 2012, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2012-04, “Technical Corrections and Improvements,” which makes minor technical corrections and clarifications to ASC 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures.” When the FASB issued Statement 157 (codified in ASC 820), it conformed the use of the term “fair value” in certain pre-Codification standards but not others. ASU 2012-04 conforms the term’s use throughout the ASC “to fully reflect the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements” of ASC 820. ASU 2012-04 also amends the requirements that must be met for an investment company to qualify for the exemption from presenting a statement of cash flows. Specifically, it eliminates the requirements that substantially all of an entity’s investments be carried at “market value” and that the investments be highly liquid. Instead, it requires substantially all of the entity’s investments to be carried at “fair value” and classified as Level 1 or Level 2 measurements under ASC 820.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

The Partnership and the Funds consider prices for exchange-traded commodity futures, forwards, swaps and options contracts to be based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1). The values of non-exchange-traded forwards, swaps and certain options contracts for which market quotations are not readily available are priced by broker-dealers who derive fair values for those assets and liabilities from observable inputs (Level 2). Investments in funds (other commodity pools) with no rights or obligations inherent within the ownership interest held by the Partnership are priced based on the end of the day net asset value (Level 2). The value of the Partnership’s investments in funds reflects its proportional interest in the funds. As of and for the periods ended June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Partnership and the Funds did not hold any derivative instruments that were priced at fair value using unobservable inputs through the application of the General Partner’s assumptions and internal valuation pricing models (Level 3). There were no transfers of assets and liabilities between Level 1 and Level 2 during the six months ended June 30, 2014 and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2013.


	June 30, 2014		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets and Liabilities (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

Assets
Investment in Funds	$	19,834,953	$	—	$	19,834,953	$	—

Net fair value	$	19,834,953	$	—	$	19,834,953	$	—


	December 31, 2013		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets and Liabilities (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

Assets
Investment in Funds	$	29,461,787	$	—	$	29,461,787	$	—

Net fair value	$	29,461,787	$	—	$	29,461,787	$	—

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

5. Investments in Funds:

On January 1, 2011, the assets allocated to Cirrus Capital Management LLC (“Cirrus”) for trading were invested in CMF Cirrus Master Fund L.P. (“Cirrus Master”), a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of Delaware. The Partnership purchased 4,000.0000 units of Cirrus Master with cash equal to $4,000,000. Cirrus Master permitted accounts managed by Cirrus using the Energy Program, a proprietary, systematic trading program, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The Partnership fully redeemed its investment in Cirrus Master on August 31, 2013 for cash equal to $1,260,276.

On May 1, 2011, the assets allocated to Aventis for trading were invested in MB Master, a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of Delaware. The Partnership purchased an interest in MB Master with cash equal to $12,756,614. MB Master permits accounts managed by Aventis using the Aventis Diversified Commodity Strategy (formerly, the Barbarian Program), a proprietary, discretionary trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner of MB Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by Aventis, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of MB Master. The General Partner and Aventis believe that trading through this structure should promote efficiency and economy in the trading process.

On May 1, 2011, the assets allocated to Krom River for trading were invested in KR Master, a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of Delaware. The Partnership purchased an interest in KR Master with cash equal to $13,913,306. KR Master permits accounts managed by Krom River using the Krom River Commodity Program, a proprietary, discretionary trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner of KR Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by Krom River, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of KR Master. The General Partner and Krom River believe that trading through this structure should promote efficiency and economy in the trading process. The General Partner and Krom River have agreed that Krom River will trade the Partnership’s assets allocated to Krom River at a level that is up to 1.5 times the amount of such assets.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

On May 1, 2011, the assets allocated to JE Moody for trading were invested in JEM Master, a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of Delaware. The Partnership purchased 12,594.1917 units of JEM Master with cash equal to $12,753,614. JEM Master permits accounts managed by JE Moody using the JEM Commodity Relative Value Program, a proprietary, systematic trading program, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner for JEM Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by JE Moody, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of JEM Master. The General Partner and JE Moody believe that trading through this structure should promote efficiency and economy in the trading process. The General Partner and JE Moody have agreed that JE Moody will trade the Partnership’s assets allocated to JE Moody at a level that is up to three times the amount of assets allocated.

The General Partner is not aware of any material changes to any of the trading programs discussed above during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014.

MB Master’s, KR Master’s and JEM Master’s, (collectively, the “Funds”) trading of futures, forwards, swaps and options contracts, if applicable, on commodities is done primarily on U.S. and foreign commodity exchanges. During the six months ended June 30, 2014, the Funds engaged in such trading through commodity brokerage accounts maintained with MS&Co. During prior periods included in this report, the Funds also engaged in such trading through commodity brokerage accounts maintained with CGM. References to the Funds in this report may also include, as relevant, reference to Cirrus Master.

A limited partner of the Funds may withdraw all or part of its capital contribution and undistributed profits, if any, from the Funds as of the end of any day. Such withdrawals are classified as a liability when the limited partner elects to redeem and informs the Funds.

Ongoing selling agent, management, administrative and incentive fees are charged at the Partnership level. All trading, exchange, clearing, user, give-up, floor brokerage and National Futures Association (“NFA”) fees (collectively, the “clearing fees”) are borne by the Funds and allocated to their limited partners, including the Partnership. All other fees and commissions are charged at the Partnership level.

At June 30, 2014, the Partnership owned approximately 2.5%, 10.8% and 29.3% of MB Master, KR Master and JEM Master, respectively. At December 31, 2013, the Partnership owned approximately 3.6%, 11.8% and 30.1% of MB Master, KR Master and JEM Master, respectively. It is the intention of the Partnership to continue to invest in the Funds. The performance of the Partnership is directly affected by the performance of the Funds. Expenses to investors as a result of the investment in the Funds are approximately the same and redemption rights are not affected.

Summarized information reflecting the total assets, liabilities and capital for the Funds is shown in the following tables.


	June 30, 2014
	Total Assets		Total Liabilities		Total Capital
MB Master	$	273,361,005	$	14,871,453	$	258,489,552
KR Master		20,025,680		54,131		19,971,549
JEM Master		39,610,842		1,305,971		38,304,871

	December 31, 2013
	Total Assets		Total Liabilities		Total Capital
MB Master	$	327,755,293	$	15,924,656	$	311,830,637
KR Master		44,043,845		1,456,785		42,587,060
JEM Master		44,509,274		32,554		44,476,720

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

Summarized information reflecting the net investment income (loss), total trading results and net income (loss) for the Funds is shown in the following tables.


	For the three months ended June 30, 2014
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
MB Master	$	(1,193,307	)	$	5,623,615		$	4,430,308
KR Master		(37,227	)		141,468			104,241
JEM Master		(263,848	)		(1,027,953	)		(1,291,801	)

	For the six months ended June 30, 2014
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
MB Master	$	(2,638,741	)	$	196,886		$	(2,441,855	)
KR Master		(89,978	)		1,098,732			1,008,754
JEM Master		(547,975	)		(3,740,506	)		(4,288,481	)


	For the three months ended June 30, 2013
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
Cirrus Master	$	(50,395	)	$	1,994,980		$	1,944,585
MB Master		(966,855	)		(8,643,760	)		(9,610,615	)
KR Master		(86,935	)		(2,872,871	)		(2,959,806	)
JEM Master		(348,433	)		1,773,546			1,425,113

	For the six months ended June 30, 2013
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
Cirrus Master	$	(88,327	)	$	3,522,440		$	3,434,113
MB Master		(1,836,344	)		(2,785,994	)		(4,622,338	)
KR Master		(163,594	)		(4,527,593	)		(4,691,187	)
JEM Master		(691,783	)		828,150			136,367

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

Summarized information reflecting the Partnership’s investment in, and the operations of, the Funds is shown in the following tables.


	June 30, 2014					For the three months ended June 30, 2014
	% of Partnership’s Net Assets								Expenses							Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
Funds	% of Partnership’s Net Assets			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Clearing Fees		Other		Net Income (Loss)			Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
MB Master		34.19	%	$	6,429,108	$	132,110		$	29,815	$	607	$	101,688			Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
KR Master		11.52	%		2,166,527		16,951			2,415		2,549		11,987			Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
JEM Master		59.78	%		11,239,318		(309,199	)		74,200		6,502		(389,901	)		Commodity Portfolio		Monthly

Total				$	19,834,953	$	(160,138	)	$	106,430	$	9,658	$	(276,226	)


	June 30, 2014					For the six months ended June 30, 2014
	% of Partnership’s Net Assets								Expenses							Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
Funds	% of Partnership’s Net Assets			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Clearing Fees		Other		Net Income (Loss)			Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
MB Master		34.19	%	$	6,429,108	$	(48,198	)	$	77,756	$	1,629	$	(127,583	)		Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
KR Master		11.52	%		2,166,527		130,670			7,991		5,257		117,422			Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
JEM Master		59.78	%		11,239,318		(1,127,408	)		153,608		13,638		(1,294,654	)		Commodity Portfolio		Monthly

Total				$	19,834,953	$	(1,044,936	)	$	239,355	$	20,524	$	(1,304,815	)


	December 31, 2013					For the three months ended June 30, 2013
	% of Partnership’s Net Assets								Expenses							Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
Funds	% of Partnership’s Net Assets			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Clearing Fees		Other		Net Income (Loss)			Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
Cirrus Master		0.00	%	$	—	$	305,963		$	4,490	$	3,214	$	298,259			Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
MB Master		39.89	%		11,037,122		(283,199	)		33,758		730		(317,687	)		Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
KR Master		18.19	%		5,032,058		(212,567	)		5,870		1,471		(219,908	)		Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
JEM Master		48.41	%		13,392,607		504,440			95,158		4,642		404,640			Commodity Portfolio		Monthly

Total				$	29,461,787	$	314,637		$	139,276	$	10,057	$	165,304


	December 31, 2013					For the six months ended June 30, 2013
	% of Partnership’s Net Assets								Expenses							Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
Funds	% of Partnership’s Net Assets			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Clearing Fees		Other		Net Income (Loss)			Investment Objective		Redemptions Permitted
Cirrus Master		0.00	%	$	—	$	539,178		$	8,024	$	5,896	$	525,258			Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
MB Master		39.89	%		11,037,122		(52,181	)		85,704		2,614		(140,499	)		Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
KR Master		18.19	%		5,032,058		(321,665	)		11,352		2,939		(335,956	)		Commodity Portfolio		Monthly
JEM Master		48.41	%		13,392,607		223,753			184,316		8,971		30,466			Commodity Portfolio		Monthly

Total				$	29,461,787	$	389,085		$	289,396	$	20,420	$	79,269

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

6. Financial Instrument Risks:

In the normal course of business, the Partnership, through its investments in the Funds, is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments. These financial instruments may include forwards, futures, swaps and options, whose values are based upon an underlying asset, index, or reference rate, and generally represent future commitments to exchange currencies or cash balances, or to purchase or sell other financial instruments at specific terms at specified future dates, or, in the case of derivative commodity instruments, to have a reasonable possibility to be settled in cash, through physical delivery or with another financial instrument. These instruments may be traded on an exchange, a swap execution facility or OTC. Exchange-traded instruments include futures and certain standardized forward, option and swap contracts. Certain swap contracts may also be traded on a swap execution facility or OTC. OTC contracts are negotiated between contracting parties and also include certain forwards and option contacts. Specific market movements of commodities or futures contracts underlying an option cannot accurately be predicted. The purchaser of an option may lose the entire premium paid for the option. The writer or seller of an option has unlimited risk. Each of these instruments is subject to various risks similar to those related to the underlying financial instruments including market and credit risk. In general, the risks associated with OTC contracts are greater than those associated with exchange-traded instruments because of the greater risk of default by the counterparty to an OTC contract. Since May 1, 2011, none of the Partnership’s/Funds’ contracts have traded OTC, although contracts may be traded OTC in the future.

The risk to the limited partners that have purchased Redeemable Units is limited to the amount of their share of the Partnership’s net assets and undistributed profits. This limited liability is a result of the organization of the Partnership as a limited partnership under Delaware law.

Market risk is the potential for changes in the value of the financial instruments traded by the Funds due to market changes, including interest and foreign exchange rate movements and fluctuations in commodity or security prices. Market risk is directly impacted by the volatility and liquidity in the markets in which the related underlying assets are traded. The Funds are exposed to a market risk equal to the value of futures and forward contracts purchased and unlimited liability on such contracts sold short.

Credit risk is the possibility that a loss may occur due to the failure of a counterparty to perform according to the terms of a contract. The Partnership’s/Funds’ risk of loss in the event of a counterparty default is typically limited to the amounts recognized in the Statements of Financial Condition and is not represented by the contract or notional amounts of the instruments. The Partnership’s/Funds’ risk of loss is reduced through the use of legally enforceable master netting agreements with counterparties that permit the Partnership/Funds to offset unrealized gains and losses and other assets and liabilities with such counterparties upon the occurrence of certain events. The Partnership/Funds had credit risk and concentration risk during the reporting period and prior periods included in this report, as CGM and/or MS&Co. or their affiliates were the sole counterparties or brokers with respect to the Partnership’s and the Funds’ assets. Credit risk with respect to exchange-traded instruments is reduced to the extent that, through CGM and/or MS&Co., the Partnership’s/Funds’ counterparty is an exchange or clearing organization. The Partnership/Funds continue to be subject to such risks with respect to MS&Co.

As both a buyer and seller of options, the Funds pay or receive a premium at the outset and then bear the risk of unfavorable changes in the price of the contract underlying the option. Written options expose the Funds to potentially unlimited liability; for purchased options, the risk of loss is limited to the premiums paid. Certain written put options permit cash settlement and do not require the option holder to own the reference asset. The Funds do not consider these contracts to be guarantees.

The General Partner monitors and attempts to control the Fund’s risk exposure on a daily basis through financial, credit and risk management monitoring systems, and accordingly, believes that it has effective procedures for evaluating and limiting the credit and market risks to which the Partnership/Funds may be subject. These monitoring systems generally allow the General Partner to statistically analyze actual trading results with risk adjusted performance indicators and correlation statistics. In addition, online monitoring systems provide account analysis of futures, forwards and options positions by sector, margin requirements, gain and loss transactions and collateral positions.

The majority of these financial instruments mature within one year of the inception date. However, due to the nature of the Funds’ businesses, these instruments may not be held to maturity.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

7. Critical Accounting Policies:

Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements and accompanying notes in conformity with GAAP requires the General Partner to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, income and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities in the financial statements and accompanying notes. As a result, actual results could differ from these estimates.

Partnership’s and the Funds’ Investments. All commodity interests held by the Partnership (including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments), through its investment in the Funds, are held for trading purposes. The commodity interests are recorded on the trade date and open contracts are recorded at fair value (as described below) at the measurement date. Investments in commodity interests denominated in foreign currencies are translated into U.S. dollars at the exchange rates prevailing at the measurement date. Gains or losses are realized when contracts are liquidated. Unrealized gains or losses on open contracts are included as a component of equity in trading account on the Funds’ Statements of Financial Condition. Net realized gains or losses and any change in net unrealized gains or losses from the preceding period are reported in the Statements of Income and Expenses.

The Funds consider prices for exchange-traded commodity futures, forwards, swaps and options contracts to be based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1). The values of non-exchange-traded forwards, swaps and certain options contracts for which market quotations are not readily available were priced by broker-dealers who derive fair values for those assets and liabilities from observable inputs (Level 2). Investments in funds (other commodity pools) with no rights or obligations inherent within the ownership interest held by the Partnership are priced based on the end of the day net asset value (Level 2). The value of the Partnership’s investments in the Funds reflects its proportional interest in the Funds. As of and for the periods ended June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Partnership and the Funds did not hold any derivative instruments that were priced at fair value using unobservable inputs through the application of the General Partner’s assumptions and internal valuation pricing models (Level 3). There were no transfers of assets and liabilities between Level 1 and Level 2 during the six months ended June 30, 2014 and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2013.

Futures Contracts. The Funds trade futures contracts. A futures contract is a firm commitment to buy or sell a specified quantity of investments, currency or a standardized amount of a deliverable grade commodity, at a specified price on a specified future date, unless the contract is closed before the delivery date or if the delivery quantity is something where physical delivery cannot occur (such as the S&P 500 Index), whereby such contract is settled in cash. Payments (“variation margin”) may be made or received by the Funds each business day, depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the underlying contracts, and are recorded as unrealized gains or losses by the Funds. When the contract is closed, the Funds record a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed. Transactions in futures contracts require participants to make both initial margin deposits of cash or other assets and variation margin deposits, through the futures broker, directly with the exchange on which the contracts are traded. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on futures contracts are included in the Funds’ Statements of Income and Expenses.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2014

(Unaudited)

Forward Foreign Currency Contracts. Forward foreign currency contracts are those contracts where the Funds agree to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed-upon future date. Forward foreign currency contracts are valued daily, and the Funds’ net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward rates at the reporting date, is included in the Funds’ Statements of Financial Condition. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on forward foreign currency contracts are recognized in the period in which the contract is closed or the changes occur, respectively, and are included in the Funds’ Statements of Income and Expenses.

The Funds do not isolate the portion of the results of operations arising from the effect of changes in foreign exchange rates on investments from fluctuations due to changes in market prices of investments held. Such fluctuations are included in net gain (loss) on investments in the Funds’ Statements of Income and Expenses.

London Metals Exchange Forward Contracts. Metal contracts traded on the London Metals Exchange (“LME”) represent a firm commitment to buy or sell a specified quantity of aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, tin or zinc. LME contracts traded by the Funds are cash settled based on prompt dates published by the LME. Payments (“variation margin”) may be made or received by the Funds each business day, depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the underlying contracts, and are recorded as unrealized gains or losses by the Funds. A contract is considered offset when all long positions have been matched with a like number of short positions settling on the same prompt date. When the contract is closed at the prompt date, the Funds record a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed. Transactions in LME contracts require participants to make both initial margin deposits of cash or other assets and variation margin deposits, through the broker, directly with the LME. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on metal contracts are included in the Funds’ Statements of Income and Expenses.

Options. The Funds may purchase and write (sell) both exchange—listed and OTC options on commodities or financial instruments. An option is a contract allowing, but not requiring, its holder to buy (call) or sell (put) a specific or standard commodity or financial instrument at a specified price during a specified time period. The option premium is the total price paid or received for the option contract. When the Funds write an option, the premium received is recorded as a liability in the Statements of Financial Condition and marked to market daily. When the Funds purchase an option, the premium paid is recorded as an asset in the Statements of Financial Condition and marked to market daily. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on options contracts are included in the Statements of Income and Expenses.

Investment Company Status. Effective January 1, 2014, the Partnership adopted ASU 2013-08, “Financial Services — Investment Companies (Topic 946): Amendments to the Scope, Measurement and Disclosure Requirements.” ASU 2013-08 changes the approach to the investment company assessment, requires non-controlling ownership interests in other investment companies to be measured at fair value, and requires additional disclosures about the investment company’s status as an investment company. ASU 2013-08 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2013. The adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on the Partnership’s financial statements. Based on management’s assessment, the Partnership has been deemed to be an investment company since inception. It has all of the fundamental and typical characteristics of an investment company.

Income Taxes. Income taxes have not been provided as each partner is individually liable for the taxes, if any, on its share of the Partnership’s income and expenses.

GAAP provides guidance for how uncertain tax positions should be recognized, measured, presented and disclosed in the financial statements and requires the evaluation of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in the course of preparing the Partnership’s financial statements to determine whether the tax positions are “more-likely-than-not” to be sustained by the applicable tax authority. Tax positions with respect to tax at the Partnership level not deemed to meet the more-likely-than-not threshold would be recorded as a tax benefit or expense in the current year. The General Partner concluded that no provision for income tax is required in the Partnership’s financial statements.

The Partnership files U.S. federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The 2010 through 2013 tax years remain subject to examination by U.S. federal and most state tax authorities. The General Partner does not believe that there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability.

Net Income (Loss) per unit. Net income (loss) per unit is calculated in accordance with investment company guidance. See Note 2, “Financial Highlights.”

Subsequent Events. The General Partner of the Partnership evaluates events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued. The General Partner has assessed the subsequent events through the date of issuance and determined that there were no subsequent events requiring adjustment of or disclosure in the financial statements.

Item 2.

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

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services. Its only assets are its investments in the Funds, interest receivable and cash. The Funds do not engage in sales of goods or services. The Funds’ only assets are their equity in trading accounts, consisting of cash and cash margin, net unrealized appreciation on open futures contracts, net unrealized appreciation on forward contracts and commodity options purchased, if applicable. Because of the low margin deposits normally required in commodity futures trading, relatively small price movements may result in substantial losses to the Partnership/Funds. While substantial losses could lead to a material decrease in liquidity, no such illiquidity occurred in the second quarter of 2014.

The Partnership’s capital consists of the capital contributions of the partners as increased or decreased by gains or losses on trading and by expenses, interest income, redemptions of Redeemable Units and distributions of profits, if any.

For the six months ended June 30, 2014, Partnership capital decreased 32.0% from $27,665,769 to $18,802,519. This decrease was attributable to redemptions of 6,450.6350 Class A Redeemable Units totaling $8,637,326, coupled with a net loss of $2,016,296. This was partially offset with subscriptions for 1,308.6900 Class A Redeemable Units totaling $1,790,372. Future redemptions can impact the amount of funds available for investment in the Funds in subsequent periods.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the General Partner to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expense during the reporting period. The General Partner believes that the estimates utilized in preparing the financial statements are reasonable. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The Partnership’s significant accounting policies are described in detail in Note 7 of the Financial Statements.

The Partnership and the Funds record all investments at fair value in their financial statements, with changes in fair value reported as a component of net realized gains (losses) and change in net unrealized trading gains (losses) in the Statements of Income and Expenses.

Results of Operations

During the second quarter of 2014, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class A Redeemable Unit decreased 2.8% from $1,337.08 to $1,299.62, as compared to a decrease of 1.1% in the second quarter of 2013. During the second quarter of 2014, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class Z Redeemable Unit decreased 2.3% from $898.16 to $877.39, as compared to a decrease of 0.6% in the second quarter of 2013. The Partnership experienced a net trading loss through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the second quarter of 2014 of $276,226. Losses were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of commodity futures in energy, and were partially offset by gains in grains, livestock, metals and softs. The Partnership experienced a net trading gain through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the second quarter of 2013 of $165,304. Gains were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of commodity futures in energy, livestock, metals and softs, and were partially offset by losses in grains.

During the second quarter, the Partnership posted a loss in Net Asset Value per Unit as trading losses in energies offset trading gains in the grains, soft commodities, livestock, and metals markets. The most significant losses were incurred within the energy sector during June from short positions in Brent crude oil futures as prices rallied on speculation that an escalation of internal fighting in Iraq would disrupt oil exports from the Middle East. Losses were also experienced during June from long positions in natural gas futures as prices fell amid reports that U.S. gas stockpile levels continued to rebound from earlier spring lows. Additional losses in the energy sector were experienced during May from long positions in crude oil and its related products as prices declined after U.S. Energy Information Agency reports indicated that U.S. crude oil imports increased, rebounding from a 17-year low. During April losses were incurred from short positions in natural gas futures after prices advanced on forecasts of cooler-than-normal temperatures in parts of the U.S. The Partnership’s losses for the quarter were mitigated by gains achieved within the grains markets during June from short positions in soybean futures as prices declined as favorable weather in the U.S. Midwest allowed farmers to accelerate plantings to near record levels. Additional gains in this sector were recorded during May from short positions in wheat futures as prices moved lower after reports indicated that U.S. wheat harvests would exceed previous predictions. Within the soft commodities markets, gains were achieved from long positions in cocoa futures during May as prices moved higher after surveys predicted cocoa shortages would increase as West African growers struggled with underachieving farms. Additional gains during May were achieved from short positions in coffee futures as prices declined as rains in Brazil eased drought damaged crops. Within the livestock markets, gains were experienced during June from long positions in lean hog futures as prices increased on speculation that U.S. hog herds would remain low as farms continue to contend with a pig killing virus into the summer months. Additional gains were recorded during April from long positions in live cattle futures as prices advanced in the second half of the month. Within the metals markets, gains were recorded during April from long positions in nickel and copper futures as prices moved higher over concern that geopolitical fallout concerning the conflict in the Ukraine would limit industrial metal supplies from Russia.

During the Partnership’s six months ended June 30, 2014, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class A Redeemable Unit decreased 7.9% from $1,411.10 to $1,299.62, as compared to a decrease of 3.4% in the six months ended June 30, 2013. During the Partnership’s six months ended June 30, 2014, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class Z Redeemable Unit decreased 7.0% from $943.14 to $877.39, as compared to a decrease of 2.5% in the six months ended June 30, 2013. The Partnership experienced a net trading loss through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the six months ended June 30, 2014 of $1,304,815. Losses were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of commodity futures in energy and grains, and were partially offset by gains in livestock, metals and softs. The Partnership experienced a net trading gain through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the six months ended June 30, 2013 of $79,269. Gains were primarily attributable to the Fund’s trading of commodity futures in livestock and metals, and were partially offset by losses in energy, grains and softs.

During the first six months of the year, the Partnership recorded a net loss in Net Asset Value per Unit as trading gains in soft commodities, grains, metals, and livestock futures were more than offset by trading losses in energy futures. The most significant losses were incurred within the energy markets during February from short positions in crude oil futures as prices rose after Energy Information Administration data indicated that crude stockpiles declined during the month. Losses in the energy sector were also incurred during June from short positions in Brent crude oil futures as prices rallied on speculation that an escalation of internal fighting in Iraq would disrupt oil exports from the Middle East. Additional losses were experienced during March from long positions in crude oil and its related products as prices dropped after reports indicated that U.S. crude oil supplies exceeded previous forecasts. A portion of the Partnership’s losses for the first six months of the year was offset by gains achieved within the soft commodities markets during May from long positions in cocoa futures as prices moved higher after surveys predicted that cocoa shortages would increase as West African growers struggle with underachieving farms. Additional gains within soft commodities sector were recorded during February from long futures positions in sugar as prices advanced amid concern that wet weather in South America would adversely affect harvest totals in the region. Within the grains markets, gains were experienced primarily during June from short positions in soybean futures as prices declined as favorable weather in the U.S. Midwest allowed farmers to accelerate June plantings to near record levels. Within the metals complex, gains were recorded during March from short positions in copper futures as prices declined amid concern that weak manufacturing data in China would limit demand for the industrial metal. Additional gains in the metals sector were achieved during February from long positions in gold futures as increased geo-political turmoil boosted demand. Additional gains were achieved within the livestock markets during June from long positions in lean hog futures as prices increased on speculation that U.S. hog herds would remain low. Gains were also recorded during April from long positions in live cattle futures as prices advanced in the second half of the month after government reports indicated that U.S. cattle herds shrank to their lowest levels in decades.

Commodity futures markets are highly volatile. Broad price fluctuations and rapid inflation increase the risks involved in commodity trading, but also increase the possibility for profit or loss. The profitability of the Partnership and the Funds depends on the existence of major price trends and the ability of the Advisors to correctly identify those price trends. Price trends are influenced by, among other things, changing supply and demand relationships, weather, governmental, agricultural, commercial and trade programs and policies, national and international political and economic events and changes in interest rates. To the extent that market trends exist and the Advisors are able to identify them, the Partnership and the Funds expect to increase capital through operations.

During the reporting period, the Partnership was paid interest on 100% of the average daily equity maintained in cash in the Partnership’s (or the Partnership’s allocable portion of a Fund’s) brokerage account during each month at a 30-day U.S. Treasury bill rate determined weekly by CGM based on the average non-competitive yield on 3-month U.S. Treasury bills maturing in 30 days from the date on which such weekly rate is determined, or at the 4-week U.S. Treasury bill discount rate, as applicable. Any interest earned on the Partnership’s account in excess of the amounts described above, if any, will be retained by CGM and/or MS&Co. and shared with the General Partner. Interest income from investment in Funds for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 decreased by $1,140 and $4,189, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013. The decrease in interest income is primarily due to lower U.S. Treasury bill rates and lower average daily equity during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013. Interest earned by the Partnership will increase the net asset value of the Partnership. The amount of interest income earned by the Partnership during the reporting period depended on the average daily equity in the Partnership’s and the Funds’ accounts and upon interest rates over which neither the Partnership/Funds nor the commodity broker had control.

Ongoing selling agent fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value for each Class of Redeemable Units as of the end of each month and, therefore, are affected by trading performance, subscriptions and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be analyzed in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Ongoing selling agent fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 decreased by $57,932 and $88,158, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013. The decrease in ongoing selling agent fees is due to lower adjusted net assets per Class during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013.

Management fees are calculated as a percentage of the net asset value of each Class of Redeemable Units allocated to the respective Advisor at the end of the month and, therefore, are affected by trading performance, subscriptions and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be analyzed in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Management fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 decreased by $64,099 and $111,836, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013. The decrease in management fees is due to lower adjusted net assets per Class during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013, as well as a reduction in management fees paid to Aventis from an annual rate of 1.50% to an annual rate of 1.25% effective March 1, 2014.

Administrative fees are paid to the General Partner for administering the business and affairs of the Partnership. These fees are calculated as a percentage of the net asset value for each Class of Redeemable Units as of the end of each month and are affected by trading performance, subscriptions and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be analyzed in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Administrative fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014 decreased by $30,203 and $49,430, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013. The decrease in administrative fees is due to lower adjusted net assets per Class during the three and six months ended June 30, 2014, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2013.

Incentive fees are based on the new trading profits generated by each Advisor as defined in the respective management agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner and each Advisor and are payable quarterly. There were no incentive fees earned for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. Trading performance for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 resulted in incentive fees of $52,192 and $86,061, respectively. To the extent an Advisor incurs a loss for the Partnership, the Advisor will not be paid an incentive fee until such Advisor recovers any net loss incurred by the Advisor and earns additional new trading profits for the Partnership.

In allocating the assets of the Partnership among “established” trading Advisors, the General Partner considers each Advisor’s past performance, trading style, volatility of markets traded and fee requirements. In allocating the assets of the Partnership among “emerging” Advisors, the General Partner conducts proprietary research and considers the background of the Advisors’ principals as well as the Advisors’ trading styles, strategies and markets traded, expected volatility, trading results (to the extent available) and fee requirements. The General Partner may consider other factors in its sole discretion, including, but not limited to, (i) the quality of the advisors’ risk control techniques, (ii) the quality of the advisor’s research techniques and (iii) the advisor’s company infrastructure and plan for development. The General Partner may modify or terminate the allocation of assets among the trading Advisors and may allocate assets to additional advisors at any time.

As of June 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the Partnership’s assets were allocated among the trading Advisors in the following approximate percentages:


Advisor	June 30, 2014				March 31, 2014
Aventis	$	6,390,921	34	%	$	7,125,476	33	%
Krom River	$	1,230,454	7	%	$	2,190,084	10	%
JE Moody	$	11,181,144	59	%	$	12,205,458	57	%

Item 3.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

All of the Partnership’s assets are subject to the risk of trading loss through its investments in the Funds. The Funds are speculative commodity pools. The market sensitive instruments held by them are acquired for speculative trading purposes, and all or substantially all of the Funds’ assets are subject to the risk of trading loss. Unlike an operating company, the risk of market sensitive instruments is integral, not incidental, to the Funds’ main line of business.

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

Market movements result in frequent changes in the fair value of the Funds’ open positions and, consequently, in their earnings and cash balances. The Funds’ market risk is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including the level and volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, equity price levels, the market value of financial instruments and contracts, the diversification effects of the Funds’ open contracts and the liquidity of the markets in which they trade.

The Funds rapidly acquire and liquidate both long and short positions in a wide range of different markets. Consequently, it is not possible to predict how a particular future market scenario will affect performance, and the Funds’ past performance is not necessarily indicative of their future results.

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

Margin requirements have been used by the Funds as the measure of their Value at Risk. Margin requirements are set by exchanges to equal or exceed the maximum losses reasonably expected to be incurred in the fair value of any given contract in 95%-99% of any one-day interval. The margin levels are established by dealers and exchanges using historical price studies as well as an assessment of current market volatility, (including the implied volatility of the options on a given futures contract) and economic fundamentals to provide a probabilistic estimate of the maximum expected near-term one-day price fluctuation.

Value at Risk tables represent a probabilistic assessment of the risk of loss in market risk sensitive instruments. The Advisors currently trade the Partnership’s assets indirectly in master fund managed accounts established in the name of the Funds, over which they have been granted limited authority to make trading decisions. The first two trading Value at Risk tables reflect the market sensitive instruments held by the Partnership indirectly, through its investments in the Funds. The remaining trading Value at Risk tables reflect the market sensitive instruments, held indirectly by each Fund, separately. There have been no material changes in the trading Value at Risk information previously disclosed in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category, through its investment in the Funds, as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. As of June 30, 2014, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $18,802,519.

June 30, 2014


Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization
Energy	$	855,863		4.55	%
Grains		55,235		0.29	%
Livestock		108,360		0.58	%
Metals		51,494		0.28	%
Softs		52,802		0.28	%

Total	$	1,123,754		5.98	%

As of December 31, 2013, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $27,665,769.

December 31, 2013


Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization
Energy	$	574,254		2.07	%
Grains		406,954		1.47	%
Livestock		261,835		0.95	%
Metals		283,623		1.03	%
Softs		96,152		0.35	%

Total	$	1,622,818		5.87	%

The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s investments in the Funds by market category as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, and the highest, lowest and average value during the three months ended June 30, 2014 and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2013. All open position trading risk exposures of the Partnership have been included in calculating the figures set forth below.

As of June 30, 2014, MB Master’s total capitalization was $258,489,552. The Partnership owned approximately 2.5% of MB Master. As of June 30, 2014, MB Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Aventis for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2014


	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			Three Months Ended June 30, 2014
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	17,285,107		6.69	%	$	19,263,186	$	2,022,815	$	14,659,709
Grains		1,709,838		0.66	%		12,658,692		1,531,613		6,410,525
Livestock		4,778		0.00	%**		861,558		214		166,686
Softs		1,952,169		0.76	%		3,591,096		1,474,228		2,081,579

Total	$	20,951,892		8.11	%

* Average of month-end Values at Risk.

** Due to rounding.

As of December 31, 2013, MB Master’s total capitalization was $311,830,637. The Partnership owned approximately 3.6% of MB Master. As of December 31, 2013, MB Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Aventis for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2013


	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2013
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	2,107,890		0.68	%	$	5,376,667	$	31,064	$	2,306,186
Grains		8,052,314		2.58	%		28,467,091		1,828,318		16,119,089
Livestock		2,105,527		0.67	%		2,561,898		4,071		1,622,197
Metals		432,274		0.14	%		484,988		58,973		65,658
Softs		1,754,855		0.56	%		3,779,458		115,103		2,393,541

Total	$	14,452,860		4.63	%

* Annual average of month-end Value at Risk.

As of June 30, 2014, KR Master’s total capitalization was $19,971,549. The Partnership owned approximately 10.8% of KR Master. As of June 30, 2014, KR Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Krom River for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2014


	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			Three Months Ended June 30, 2014
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	159,412		0.80	%	$	159,412	$	93,868	$	123,324
Grains		115,638		0.58	%		255,683		31,050		120,381
Livestock		45,778		0.23	%		68,918		12,781		41,946
Metals		476,792		2.39	%		1,172,774		476,792		718,576
Softs		37,015		0.18	%		369,616		26,015		72,234

Total	$	834,635		4.18	%

* Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2013, KR Master’s total capitalization was $42,587,060. The Partnership owned approximately 11.8% of KR Master. As of December 31, 2013, KR Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Krom River for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2013


	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2013
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	278,432		0.65	%	$	1,380,251	$	278,432		690,943
Grains		288,241		0.68	%		1,297,380		1,487		404,464
Livestock		75,063		0.18	%		803,000		9,905		93,680
Metals		2,271,706		5.33	%		5,810,837		456,425		2,867,697

Total	$	2,913,442		6.84	%

* Annual average of month-end Value at Risk.

As of June 30, 2014, JEM Master’s total capitalization was $38,304,871. The Partnership owned approximately 29.3% of JEM Master. As of June 30, 2014, JEM Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to JE Moody for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2014


	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			Three months ended June 30, 2014
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	1,387,437		3.62	%	$	3,052,946	$	1,052,893	$	1,327,568
Livestock		352,550		0.92	%		754,718		24,750		302,864

Total	$	1,739,987		4.54	%

* Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2013, JEM Master’s total capitalization was $44,476,720. The Partnership owned approximately 30.1% of JEM Master. As of December 31, 2013, JEM Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to JE Moody for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2013


	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2013
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	1,546,563		3.48	%	$	3,347,583	$	1,298,733	$	1,815,100
Grains		275,940		0.62	%		606,150		196,290		397,605
Livestock		588,634		1.32	%		1,130,423		304,526		788,235
Softs		109,560		0.25	%		206,085		11,495		154,107

Total	$	2,520,697		5.67	%

* Annual average of month-end Value at Risk.

Item 4.

Controls and Procedures

The Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Partnership on the reports that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods expected in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Partnership in the reports it files is accumulated and communicated to management, including the President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the General Partner, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure and appropriate SEC filings.

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

The General Partner’s President and CFO have evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of June 30, 2014 and, based on that evaluation, the General Partner’s President and CFO have concluded that at that date, the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

There were no changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting process during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

Legal Proceedings.

There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Partnership nor the General Partner.

The following information supplements and amends the discussion set forth under Part I, Item 3 “Legal Proceedings” in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, as updated by the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

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

MS&Co. is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, a Delaware holding company. Morgan Stanley files periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission as required by the Exchange Act, which include current descriptions of material litigation and material proceedings and investigations, if any, by governmental and/or regulatory agencies or self-regulatory organizations concerning Morgan Stanley and its subsidiaries, including MS&Co. As a consolidated subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, MS&Co. does not file its own periodic reports with the SEC that contain descriptions of material litigation, proceedings and investigations. As a result, please refer to the “Legal Proceedings” section of Morgan Stanley’s SEC 10-K filings for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009.

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

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

On May 7, 2009, MS&Co. 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, which is now styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). The third amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. On July 22, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval.

On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against MS&Co. and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On 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 MS&Co.’s individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in these cases was approximately $55 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss for this action up to the difference between the $55 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed two complaints against MS&Co. 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 filed on June 10, 2010 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 MS&Co. 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 August 11, 2011, plaintiff’s claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants filed answers to the amended complaints on October 7, 2011. On February 9, 2012, defendants’ demurrers with respect to all other claims were overruled. On December 20, 2013, plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. A bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin in January 2015. MS&Co. is not a defendant in connection with the securitizations at issue in that trial. On May 23, 2014, plaintiff and the defendants in the bellwether trial filed motions for summary adjudication. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in these cases was approximately $301 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $6 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss for this action up to the difference between the $301 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. in this action was approximately $203 million. The complaint raises claims under Illinois law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. MS&Co. filed its answer on December 21, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $56 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $56 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On October 25, 2010, MS&Co., certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle, were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the special purpose vehicle in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court’s decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities’ failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities’ offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities’ underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement is subject to court approval.

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 19, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $385 million. The amended complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 11, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. The defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on December 16, 2013. On July 16, 2014, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against MS&Co. with respect to one of the securitizations at issue. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $67 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $67 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against MS&Co. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (“Supreme Court of NY, NY County”), styled Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued and/or sold to plaintiffs by MS&Co. 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 recessionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order MS&Co. appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, MS&Co. filed its answer to the amended complaint. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $99 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $99 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, styled Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on April 2, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of the certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs by MS&Co. was approximately $153 million. The amended 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. MS&Co. filed its answer on August 17, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $113 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $2 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $113 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B., filed two complaints against MS&Co. in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styled Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B. v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that MS&Co. made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to the plaintiff by MS&Co. in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. The complaints each raised 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 March 20, 2012, MS&Co. filed answers to the complaints in both cases. On June 7, 2012, the two cases were consolidated. On January 10, 2013, MS&Co. filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions with respect to plaintiff’s claims. On February 6, 2013, the FDIC filed an amended consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2013, MS&Co. filed a motion for summary judgment and special exceptions, which motion was denied in substantial part on April 26, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the FDIC filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in November 2014. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $46 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $5 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $46 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey styled The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. is approximately $1 billion. The complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud and tortious interference with contract and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages, rescission and rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, increases the total amount of the certificates at issue by approximately $80 million, adds causes of action for fraudulent inducement, equitable fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and includes a claim for treble damages. On March 15, 2013, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 26, 2013, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On June 5, 2014, the

defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $623 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $623 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Bank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On April 22, 2014, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied in substantial part. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $75 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $75 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against MS&Co., certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 10, 2014, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2014, MS&Co. filed a renewed motion to dismiss with respect to two certificates at issue in the case. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $284 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $52 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $284 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the SDNY. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiffs was approximately $417 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, violations of the Texas Securities Act, and violations of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953 and seeks, among other things, rescissory and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 13, 2013. On January 22, 2014, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under Texas Securities Act and the Illinois Securities Law of 1953. On April 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to strike certain of the defendants’ affirmative defenses. On July 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for certification of interlocutory appeal and a stay of all proceedings. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $215 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $26 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $215 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

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

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

Item 1A.

Risk Factors.

There have been no material changes to the risk factors set forth under Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and Part II, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Item 2.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

For the three months ended June 30, 2014, there were subscriptions for 446.2240 Class A Redeemable Units totaling $592,804. The Redeemable Units were issued in reliance upon applicable exemptions from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. The Redeemable Units were purchased by accredited investors as defined in Regulation D. In determining the applicability of the exemption, the General Partner relied on the fact that the Redeemable Units were purchased by accredited investors in a private offering.

Proceeds from the sale of Redeemable Units are used in the trading of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, forwards and swap contracts.

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

Period

(a) Class A Total
Number of Shares
(or Redeemable
Units) Purchased*

(b) Class A Average
Price Paid per
Share (or
Redeemable Unit)**

(d) Maximum
Number
(or Approximate

Dollar Value) of
Shares
(or Redeemable Units)
that May Yet Be

Purchased Under the
Plans or Programs

April 1, 2014 –

April 30, 2014

579.1580

1,327.75

N/A

May 1, 2014 –

May 31, 2014

773.5130

1,308.56

N/A

June 1, 2014 –

June 30, 2014

723.2340

1,299.62

N/A

2,075.9050

1,310.80

* Generally, limited partners are permitted to redeem their Redeemable Units as of the end of each month on three business days’ notice to the General Partner. Under certain circumstances, the General Partner can compel redemption, although to date the General Partner has not exercised this right. Purchases of Redeemable Units by the Partnership reflected in the chart above were made in the ordinary course of the Partnership’s business in connection with effecting redemptions for limited partners.

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

Item 3.

Defaults Upon Senior Securities — None.

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures — Not Applicable.

Item 5.

Other Information — None.

Item 6.

Exhibits

Exhibit



3.1(a)		Certificate of Limited Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on January 30, 2006 (filed as Exhibit 3.1(a) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on September 24, 2008 (filed as Exhibit 3.1(b) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(c)		Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on September 25, 2009 (filed as Exhibit 3.1(c) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(d)		Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on June 29, 2010 (filed as Exhibit 3.1(d) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(e)		Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on April 15, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 3.1(e) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

3.2(a)		Application for Authority as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on February 2, 2006 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(a) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Certificate of Amendment of the Application for Authority as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on September 24, 2008 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(b) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(c)		Certificate of Amendment of the Application for Authority as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on September 29, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(c) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(d)		Certificate of Amendment of the Application for Authority as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on June 30, 2010 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(d) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(e)		Certificate of Amendment of the Application for Authority as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on May 10, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(e) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(f)		Certificate of Amendment of the Application for Authority as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on September 6, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(f) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(g)		Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership dated August 7, 2013 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(g) to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed on August 14, 2013, and incorporated herein by reference)

3.3		Third Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement (filed as Exhibit 3.3 to Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-12G/A filed on November 7, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.1(a)		Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and J E Moody & Company LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-12G/A filed on November 7, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Letter from the General Partner to J E Moody & Company LLC extending the Management Agreement from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014 (filed as Exhibit 10.1(b) to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 28, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.2(a)		Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Krom River Trading A.G. and Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited (filed as Exhibit 10.2(a) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Amendment to the Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Krom River Trading A.G. and Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the current report on Form 8-K filed on October 7, 2013, and incorporated herein by reference)

(c)		Letter from the General Partner to Krom River Trading A.G. and Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited extending the Management Agreement from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014 (filed as Exhibit 10.2(b) to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 28, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference)



10.3(a)		Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Aventis Asset Management, LLC (formerly Misfit Financial Group, LLC) (filed as Exhibit 10.3(a) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Amendment to the Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Aventis Asset Management, LLC (formerly Misfit Financial Group, LLC) (filed as Exhibit 10.3(b) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(c)		Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Aventis Asset Management, LLC (formerly Misfit Financial Group, LLC) (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the current report on Form 8-K filed on March 6, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference)

(d)		Letter from the General Partner to Aventis Asset Management, LLC (formerly Misfit Financial Group, LLC) extending the Management Agreement from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014 (filed as Exhibit 10.3(d) to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 28, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.4(a)		Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Cirrus Capital Management LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.4(a) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Letter from the General Partner to Cirrus Capital Management LLC extending the Management Agreement from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014 (filed as Exhibit 10.4(b) to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 28, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.5		Form of Customer Agreement between the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.6 to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.6		Agency Agreement between the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.7 to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.7		Form of Subscription Agreement (filed as Exhibit 10.8 to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.8(a)		Escrow Agreement among Ceres Managed Futures LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and The Bank of New York (filed as Exhibit 10.9(a) to Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-12G/A filed on November 7, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Amendment No. 5 to Escrow Agreement among Ceres Managed Futures LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and The Bank of New York (filed as Exhibit 10.9(b) to Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-12G/A filed on November 7, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.9		Commodity Futures Customer Agreement between the Partnership and MS&Co., effective October 29, 2013 (filed as Exhibit 10.10 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed on November 14, 2013, and incorporated herein by reference)

10.10		Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement between the Partnership, the General Partner and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, effective March 1, 2014 (filed as Exhibit 10.11 to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 28, 2014, and incorporated herein by reference)

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

31.2		Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification (Certification of Chief Financial Officer) (filed herewith)

32.1		Section 1350 Certification (Certification of President and Director) (filed herewith)

32.2		Section 1350 Certification (Certification of Chief Financial Officer) (filed herewith)

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document.

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.



101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.

101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.

101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

SIGNATURES

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

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.


By:		Ceres Managed Futures LLC
		(General Partner)

By:		/s/ Alper Daglioglu
		Alper Daglioglu President and Director

Date:		August 13, 2014


By:		/s/ Steven Ross
		Steven Ross Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)

Date:		August 13, 2014

Attached files

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P. Reports

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P. - FORM 10-Q - August 13, 2014

Attached files

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P. Reports