Attached files
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 September 30, 2014 or
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from __________________to__________________
Commission file number: 000-26280
|
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
|
||
|
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
Delaware
|
13-3782225
|
|||
|
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
|||
|
Ceres Managed Futures LLC
|
||||
|
522 Fifth Avenue
|
||||
|
New York, NY
|
10036
|
|||
|
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip Code)
|
|||
|
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code
|
(855) 672-4468
|
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer x
|
Smaller reporting company o
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes 0 No T
As of September 30, 2014, 2,832,570.925 Limited Partnership Units were outstanding.
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
INDEX TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
September 30, 2014
|
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
||
|
Item 1.
|
Financial Statements (Unaudited)
|
|
|
Statements of Financial Condition as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013
|
2
|
|
|
Statements of Income and Expenses for the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2014 and 2013
|
3
|
|
|
Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2014 and 2013
|
4
|
|
|
Notes to Financial Statements
|
5-16
|
|
|
Item 2.
|
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
|
17-27
|
|
Item 3.
|
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
27-34
|
|
Item 4.
|
Controls and Procedures
|
34-35
|
|
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
|
||
|
Item 1.
|
Legal Proceedings
|
36-53
|
|
Item 1A.
|
Risk Factors
|
53
|
|
Item 4.
|
Mine Safety Disclosures
|
53
|
|
Item 6.
|
Exhibits
|
53-54
|
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
(Unaudited)
|
September 30,
|
December 31,
|
||
|
2014
|
2013
|
||
|
ASSETS
|
$
|
$
|
|
|
Investments:
|
|||
|
Investment in BHM I, LLC
|
36,868,690
|
46,985,018
|
|
|
Investment in PGR Master Fund
|
4,185,574
|
3,327,454
|
|
|
Investment in MB Master Fund
|
3,044,630
|
4,183,031
|
|
|
Total Investments (cost $6,635,012 and $7,622,350)
|
44,098,894
|
54,495,503
|
|
|
Interest receivable
|
115
|
494
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
44,099,009
|
54,495,997
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL
|
|||
|
Liabilities:
|
|||
|
Redemptions payable to General Partner
|
1,579,898
|
1,159,681
|
|
|
Redemptions payable to Limited Partners
|
121,697
|
–
|
|
|
Total redemptions payable
|
1,701,595
|
1,159,681
|
|
|
Accrued brokerage fees
|
154,364
|
270,566
|
|
|
Accrued management fees
|
6,707
|
124,834
|
|
|
Total Liabilities
|
1,862,666
|
1,555,081
|
|
|
Partners’ Capital:
|
|||
|
Limited Partners (2,832,570.925 and 3,829,652.114 Units, respectively)
|
41,749,886
|
52,246,247
|
|
|
General Partner (33,004.274 and 50,919.274 Units, respectively)
|
486,457
|
694,669
|
|
|
Total Partners’ Capital
|
42,236,343
|
52,940,916
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Partners’ Capital
|
44,099,009
|
54,495,997
|
|
|
NET ASSET VALUE PER UNIT
|
14.74
|
13.64
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 2 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND EXPENSES
(Unaudited)
|
For the Three Months
Ended September 30,
|
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30,
|
||||||
|
2014
|
2013
|
2014
|
2013
|
||||
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
||||
|
INVESTMENT INCOME
|
|||||||
|
Interest income
|
1,191
|
3,321
|
6,128
|
20,046
|
|||
|
EXPENSES
|
|||||||
|
Brokerage fees
|
472,219
|
905,969
|
1,724,317
|
3,001,016
|
|||
|
Management fees
|
19,893
|
413,468
|
290,089
|
1,358,460
|
|||
|
Total Expenses
|
492,112
|
1,319,437
|
2,014,406
|
4,359,476
|
|||
|
NET INVESTMENT LOSS
|
(490,921)
|
(1,316,116)
|
(2,008,278)
|
(4,339,430)
|
|||
|
TRADING RESULTS
|
|||||||
|
Trading profit (loss):
|
|||||||
|
Net realized gain on investment
in BHM I, LLC
|
2,979,341
|
481,449
|
15,372,189
|
294,910
|
|||
|
Net realized gain on investment in MB Master Fund
|
742
|
22,817
|
6,085
|
18,888
|
|||
|
Net realized gain (loss) on investment in PGR Master Fund
|
(30,938)
|
(661)
|
(31,053)
|
(27,544)
|
|||
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investment in BHM I, LLC
|
(3,687,895)
|
2,262,867
|
(9,667,250)
|
1,452,273
|
|||
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation investment in MB Master Fund
|
154,256
|
93,728
|
158,742
|
80,324
|
|||
|
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investment in PGR Master Fund
|
(38,625)
|
(120,771)
|
99,237
|
682,942
|
|||
|
Total Trading Results
|
(623,119)
|
2,739,429
|
5,937,950
|
2,501,793
|
|||
|
NET INCOME (LOSS)
|
(1,114,040)
|
1,423,313
|
3,929,672
|
(1,837,637)
|
|||
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) ALLOCATION
|
|||||||
|
Limited Partners
|
(1,101,507)
|
1,406,754
|
3,866,187
|
(1,816,629)
|
|||
|
General Partner
|
(12,533)
|
16,559
|
63,485
|
(21,008)
|
|||
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER UNIT *
|
|||||||
|
Limited Partners
|
(0.40)
|
0.33
|
1.10
|
(0.39)
|
|||
|
General Partner
|
(0.40)
|
0.33
|
1.10
|
(0.39)
|
|||
|
Units
|
Units
|
Units
|
Units
|
||||
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER
|
|||||||
|
OF UNITS OUTSTANDING
|
3,066,728.604
|
4,433,621.713
|
3,395,874.418
|
4,740,630.874
|
|||
* Based on change in net asset value per Unit.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 3 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS’ CAPITAL
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2014 and 2013
(Unaudited)
|
Units of
|
|||||||
|
Partnership
|
Limited
|
General
|
|||||
|
Interest
|
Partners
|
Partner
|
Total
|
||||
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
|||||
|
Partners’ Capital,
|
|||||||
|
December 31, 2013
|
3,880,571.388
|
52,246,247
|
694,669
|
52,940,916
|
|||
|
Net Income
|
–
|
3,866,187
|
63,485
|
3,929,672
|
|||
|
Redemptions
|
(1,014,996.189)
|
(14,362,548)
|
(271,697)
|
(14,634,245)
|
|||
|
Partners’ Capital,
|
|||||||
|
September 30, 2014
|
2,865,575.199
|
41,749,886
|
486,457
|
42,236,343
|
|||
|
Partners’ Capital,
|
|||||||
|
December 31, 2012
|
5,198,875.076
|
73,232,715
|
826,757
|
74,059,472
|
|||
|
Net Loss
|
–
|
(1,816,629)
|
(21,008)
|
(1,837,637)
|
|||
|
Redemptions
|
(962,847.443)
|
(13,423,708)
|
(100,008)
|
(13,523,716)
|
|||
|
Partners’ Capital,
|
|||||||
|
September 30, 2013
|
4,236,027.633
|
57,992,378
|
705,741
|
58,698,119
|
|||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 4 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
September 30, 2014
(Unaudited)
The unaudited financial statements contained herein include, in the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the financial condition and results of operations of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Strategic L.P. (the “Partnership”). The financial statements and condensed notes herein should be read in conjunction with the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 10-K”).
1. Organization
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Strategic L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1994 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy, and agricultural products (collectively, “Futures Interests”) (refer to Note 4. Financial Instruments). The Partnership is one of the Morgan Stanley Spectrum series of funds, comprised of the Partnership, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Currency and Commodity L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Technical L.P., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P., and prior to September 30, 2014, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Global Balanced L.P. (“Spectrum Global Balanced”) (collectively, the “Spectrum Series”).
Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, acts as the general partner (“Ceres” or
- 5 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
the “General Partner”) and commodity pool operator for the Partnership. Ceres is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC (“MSSBH”). MSSBH is wholly-owned indirectly by Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is doing business as Morgan Stanley Wealth Management (“Morgan Stanley Wealth Management”). Morgan Stanley Wealth Management is a principal subsidiary of MSSBH.
The clearing commodity broker for the Partnership is Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”). MS&Co. also acts as the counterparty on all trading of foreign currency forward contracts. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (“MSCG”) acts as the counterparty on all trading of options on foreign currency forward contracts. MS&Co. and MSCG are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Morgan Stanley. The trading advisors to the Partnership are Blenheim Capital Management, L.L.C. (“Blenheim”), Aventis Asset Management, LLC (“Aventis”) and PGR Capital L.P. (“PGR”) (each individually, a “Trading Advisor”, or collectively, the “Trading Advisors”).
Blenheim, Aventis and PGR manage the assets of the Partnership through its investments in Morgan Stanley Smith Barney BHM I, LLC (“BHM I, LLC”), MB Master Fund L.P. (“MB Master Fund”) and PGR Master Fund L.P. (“PGR Master Fund”), respectively (collectively, the “Funds”). Ceres is the trading manager to BHM I, LLC and the general partner to MB Master Fund and PGR Master Fund.
- 6 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Effective October 1, 2014, the flat rate brokerage fee, equal to an annual rate of 4.0% of the Partnership’s net assets, was separated into (i) a general partner administrative fee payable to the General Partner equal to an annual rate of 2.0% of the Partnership’s net assets, and (ii) an ongoing placement agent fee payable to Morgan Stanley Wealth Management equal to an annual rate of 2.0% of the Partnership’s net assets. The October 1, 2014 fee changes, in the aggregate, did not exceed the flat rate brokerage fee and, accordingly, there is no change to the aggregate fees incurred by the Partnership.
The current term of the management agreement with Blenheim will expire on November 30, 2014 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. The current term of the management agreement with PGR will expire on September 30, 2015 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. The current term of the management agreement with Aventis will expire on June 30, 2015 and will renew annually unless terminated by the General Partner or the Trading Advisor. In general, each management agreement may be terminated upon notice by either party.
- 7 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
|
2.
|
Financial Highlights
|
Financial Highlights for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 were as follows:
For the Three Months For the Nine Months
Ended September 30, Ended September 30,
|
2014
|
2013
|
2014
|
2013
|
|
|
Per Unit operating performance:
|
||||
|
Net asset value at the beginning of the period:
|
$ 15.14
|
$ 13.53
|
$ 13.64
|
$ 14.25
|
|
Interest Income
|
– (3)
|
– (3)
|
– (3)
|
– (3)
|
|
Expenses
|
(0.17)
|
(0.30)
|
(0.61)
|
(0.93)
|
|
Realized/Unrealized Income (Loss) (1)
|
(0.23)
|
0.63
|
1.71
|
0.54
|
|
Net Income (Loss)
|
(0.40)
|
0.33
|
1.10
|
(0.39)
|
|
Net asset value, September 30:
|
$ 14.74
|
$ 13.86
|
$ 14.74
|
$ 13.86
|
|
Ratios to average net assets:
|
||||
|
Net Investment Loss (2)
|
(4.3)%
|
(8.8)%
|
(5.6)%
|
(8.9)%
|
|
Expenses before Incentive Fees (2)
|
4.3%
|
8.8%
|
5.6%
|
9.0%
|
|
Expenses after Incentive Fees (2)
|
4.3%
|
8.8%
|
5.6%
|
9.0%
|
|
Total return before incentive fees
|
(2.6)%
|
2.4%
|
8.1%
|
(2.7)%
|
|
Total return after incentive fees
|
(2.6)%
|
2.4%
|
8.1%
|
(2.7)%
|
|
(1)
|
Realized/Unrealized Income (Loss) is a balancing amount necessary to reconcile the change in net asset value per Unit with the other per Unit information.
|
|
(2)
|
Annualized (except for incentive fees if applicable).
|
|
(3)
|
Amount less than $0.005 per Unit.
|
- 8 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
|
3.
|
Related Party Transactions
|
The Partnership’s cash is on deposit in commodity brokerage accounts with Morgan Stanley. Monthly, MS&Co. pays the Partnership interest income on 100% of the average daily equity maintained in cash in the Partnership’s account during each month at a rate equal to 80% of the monthly average of the 4-week U.S. Treasury bill discount rate. MS&Co. retains any interest earned in excess of the interest paid to the Partnership. For purposes of such interest payments, net assets do not include monies due to the Partnership on Futures Interests that have not been received. The Partnership pays brokerage fees to Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and/or its affiliates.
4. Financial Instruments
The Partnership trades Futures Interests. Futures and forwards represent contracts for delivery of an instrument at a specified date and price. Futures Interests are open commitments until the settlement date, at which time they are realized. They are valued at fair value, generally on a daily basis, and the unrealized gains and losses on open contracts (the difference between contract trade price and market price) are reported in the Partnership’s Statements of Financial Condition as a net unrealized gain or loss on open contracts. The resulting net change in unrealized gains and losses is reflected in the “Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investment in BHM I, LLC”, “Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investment in PGR Master Fund” and “Net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in MB Master Fund” on open contracts from one period to the next on the Statements of Income and Expenses. The fair value of exchange-traded futures, options and
- 9 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
forward contracts is determined by the various futures exchanges, and reflects the settlement price for each contract as of the close of business on the last business day of the reporting period.
The fair value of foreign currency forward contracts is extrapolated on a forward basis from the spot prices quoted as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.) on the last business day of the reporting period from various exchanges. The fair value of non-exchange-traded foreign currency option contracts is
calculated by applying an industry standard model application for options valuation of foreign currency options, using as input the spot prices, interest rates, and option implied volatilities quoted as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.) on the last business day of the reporting period. The fair value of an off-exchange-traded contract is based on the fair value quoted by the counterparty. Risk arises from changes in the value of these contracts and the potential inability of counterparties to perform under the terms of the contracts. There are numerous factors which may significantly influence the fair value of these contracts, including interest rate volatility.
The Partnership may invest in affiliated underlying funds (“Master Fund(s)”). Relevant authoritative guidance permits, as a practical expedient, the Partnership to measure the fair value of its investment in Master Funds on the basis of the net asset value per share of such investments (or the equivalent) if the net asset value per share of such investments (or the equivalent) is calculated in a manner consistent with the measurement principles of applicable authoritative guidance as of the Partnership’s reporting date. The fair value of each Master Fund is based on the information provided by the Master Fund
- 10 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
which reflects the Partnership’s share of the fair value of the net assets of the Master Fund (i.e., the practical expedient is used).
The fair value of an exchange-traded contract is based on the settlement price quoted by the exchange on the day with respect to which fair value is being determined. If an exchange-traded contract could not have
been liquidated on such day due to the operation of daily limits or other rules of the exchange, the
settlement price will be equal to the settlement price on the first subsequent day on which the contract could be liquidated.
The Partnership’s contracts, if any, are accounted for on a trade-date basis. The Partnership accounts for its derivative investments as required by the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (the “FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”). A derivative is defined as a financial instrument or other contract that has all three of the following characteristics:
|
1)
|
a) One or more “underlyings” and b) one or more “notional amounts” or payment provisions or both;
|
|
2)
|
Requires no initial net investment or a smaller initial net investment than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response relative to changes in market factors; and
|
|
3)
|
Terms that require or permit net settlement.
|
- 11 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Generally, derivatives include futures, forward, swaps or options contracts, and other financial instruments with similar characteristics, such as caps, floors, and collars.
The futures, forwards and options traded by the Partnership involve varying degrees of related market risk. Market risk is often dependent upon changes in the level or volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, and prices of financial instruments and commodities, factors that result in frequent changes in the
fair value of the Partnership’s open positions, and consequently in its earnings, whether realized or unrealized, and cash flow. Gains and losses on open positions of exchange-traded futures, exchange-traded forward, and exchange-traded futures-styled options contracts are settled daily through variation margin. Gains and losses on off-exchange-traded forward currency contracts are settled upon termination of the contract. Gains and losses on off-exchange-traded forward currency options contracts are settled on an agreed-upon settlement date.
5. Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures
Financial instruments are carried at fair value, which is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. Assets and liabilities carried at fair value are classified and disclosed in the following three levels: Level 1 - unadjusted
quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities; Level 2 - inputs other than unadjusted quoted market prices that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly (including unadjusted quoted market prices for similar investments, interest rates and credit risk); and
- 12 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Level 3 - unobservable inputs for the asset or liability (including the Partnership’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments). In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, an investment’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Partnership’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and consideration of factors specific to the investment.
The Partnership’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are summarized in the following tables by the type of inputs applicable to the fair value measurements.
|
September 30, 2014
|
Unadjusted
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets
for Identical
Assets
(Level 1)
|
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
|
|
Assets
|
||||
|
Investment in BHM I, LLC
|
–
|
36,868,690
|
n/a
|
36,868,690
|
|
Investment in PGR Master Fund
|
–
|
4,185,574
|
n/a
|
4,185,574
|
|
Investment in MB Master Fund
|
–
|
3,044,630
|
n/a
|
3,044,630
|
|
Total Assets
|
–
|
44,098,894
|
n/a
|
44,098,894
|
|
December 31, 2013
|
Unadjusted
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets
for Identical
Assets
(Level 1)
|
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
|
Total
|
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
|
|
Assets
|
||||
|
Investment in BHM I, LLC
|
–
|
46,985,018
|
n/a
|
46,985,018
|
|
Investment in PGR Master Fund
|
–
|
3,327,454
|
n/a
|
3,327,454
|
|
Investment in MB Master Fund
|
–
|
4,183,031
|
n/a
|
4,183,031
|
|
Total Assets
|
–
|
54,495,503
|
n/a
|
54,495,503
|
- 13 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
During the period from January 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014, and the twelve months ended December 31, 2013, there were no Level 3 assets and liabilities and there were no transfers of assets or liabilities between Level 1 and Level 2.
Investment in BHM I, LLC, MB Master Fund and PGR Master Fund
The Partnership’s investment represents approximately 87.3% and 88.7% for BHM I, LLC, 7.2% and 7.9% for MB Master Fund, 9.9% and 6.3% for PGR Master Fund, respectively, of the net asset value of the Partnership at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.
The tables below represent summarized Income Statement information for BHM I, LLC, MB Master Fund and PGR Master Fund for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, in accordance with Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X:
|
For the Three Months
Ended September 30, 2014
|
Investment
Income
|
Net
Investment Loss
|
Total Trading Results
|
Net
Income/(Loss)
|
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
|
|
BHM I, LLC
|
–
|
(1,819,010)
|
(4,681,759)
|
(6,500,769)
|
|
MB Master Fund
|
6,660
|
(1,197,414)
|
13,292,384
|
12,094,970
|
|
PGR Master Fund
|
293
|
(27,008)
|
(186,444)
|
(213,452)
|
|
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30, 2014
|
Investment
Income
|
Net
Investment Loss
|
Total Trading Results
|
Net
Income/(Loss)
|
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
|
|
BHM I, LLC
|
–
|
(5,166,797)
|
43,488,542
|
38,321,745
|
|
MB Master Fund
|
34,166
|
(3,836,155)
|
13,489,270
|
9,653,115
|
|
PGR Master Fund
|
1,506
|
(63,712)
|
(169,473)
|
(233,185)
|
- 14 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
|
For the Three Months
Ended September 30, 2013
|
Investment
Income
|
Net
Investment Loss
|
Total Trading Results
|
Net
Income/(Loss)
|
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
|
|
BHM I, LLC
|
–
|
(1,663,715)
|
18,270,087
|
16,606,372
|
|
MB Master Fund
|
13,014
|
(1,512,471)
|
6,850,473
|
5,338,002
|
|
PGR Master Fund
|
1,273
|
(18,354)
|
(905,930)
|
(924,284)
|
|
For the Nine Months
Ended September 30, 2013
|
Investment
Income
|
Net
Investment Loss
|
Total Trading Results
|
Net
Income
|
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
$
|
|
|
BHM I, LLC
|
–
|
(5,306,789)
|
11,380,596
|
6,073,807
|
|
MB Master Fund
|
64,284
|
(3,348,815)
|
4,064,479
|
715,664
|
|
PGR Master Fund
|
9,315
|
(105,210)
|
4,944,302
|
4,839,092
|
6. 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.
- 15 -
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
7. Income Taxes
No provision for income taxes has been made in the accompanying financial statements, as partners are individually responsible for reporting income or loss based upon their respective share of the Partnership’s revenues and expenses for income tax purposes. The Partnership files U.S. federal and state tax returns.
The guidance issued by the FASB on income taxes clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in the Partnership's financial statements, and prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or
expected to be taken. The Partnership has concluded that there are no significant uncertain tax positions that would require recognition in the financial statements as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. If applicable, the Partnership recognizes interest accrued related to unrecognized tax benefits in interest expense and penalties in other expenses in the Statements of Income and Expenses. Generally, the 2011 through 2013 tax years remain subject to examination by U.S. federal and most state tax authorities. No income tax returns are currently under examination.
8. Subsequent Events
Management performed its evaluation of subsequent events through the date of filing, and has determined that, other than as referenced in Note 1. Organization to the financial statements, there were no subsequent events requiring adjustment of or disclosure in the financial statements.
- 16 -
|
Item 2.
|
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
|
|
|
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
|
As of September 30, 2014, the percentage of assets allocated to each market sector was approximately as follows: Interest Rate 5.57%; Currency 30.24%; Equity 19.29%; and Commodity 44.90%.
Liquidity. The Partnership deposits its assets with MS&Co. as its clearing commodity broker in separate futures, forward and options trading accounts established for each Trading Advisor. Such assets are used as margin to engage in trading and may be used as margin solely for the Partnership’s trading. The assets are held either in non-interest bearing bank accounts or in securities and instruments permitted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for investment of customer segregated or secured funds. Since the Partnership’s sole purpose is to trade in futures, forwards and options, it is expected that the Partnership will continue to own such liquid assets for margin purposes.
The Partnership’s investment in futures, forwards and options may, from time to time, be illiquid. Most U.S. futures exchanges limit fluctuations in prices during a single day by regulations referred to as “daily price fluctuation limits” or “daily limits.” Trades may not be executed at prices beyond the daily limit. If the price for a particular futures or options contract has increased or decreased by an amount equal to the daily limit, positions in that futures or options contract can neither be taken nor liquidated unless traders are willing to effect trades at or within the limit. Futures prices have occasionally moved the daily limit for several consecutive days with little or no trading. These market conditions could prevent the Partnership from promptly liquidating its futures or options contracts and result in restrictions on redemptions.
- 17 -
There is no limitation on daily price moves in trading forward contracts on foreign currencies. The markets for some world currencies have low trading volume and are illiquid, which may prevent the Partnership from trading in potentially profitable markets or prevent the Partnership from promptly liquidating unfavorable positions in such markets, subjecting it to substantial losses. Either of these market conditions could result in restrictions on redemptions. For the periods covered by this report, illiquidity has not materially affected the Partnership’s assets.
There are no known material trends, demands, commitments, events, or uncertainties at the present time that are reasonably likely to result in the Partnership’s liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way.
As of September 30, 2014, approximately 84.28% of the Partnership’s total investment exposure through investments in Master Funds is futures contracts which are exchange-traded while approximately 15.72% is forward contracts which are off-exchange traded.
Capital Resources. The Partnership does not have, nor does it expect to have, any capital assets. Redemptions of units of limited partnership interest (“Unit(s)”) in the future will affect the amount of funds available for investments in futures, forwards and options in subsequent periods. It is not possible to estimate the amount, and therefore the impact, of future outflows of Units.
There are no known material trends, favorable or unfavorable, that would affect, nor any expected material changes to, the Partnership’s capital resource arrangements at the present time.
- 18 -
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations. The Partnership does not have any off-balance sheet arrangements, nor does it have contractual obligations or commercial commitments to make future payments, that would affect its liquidity or capital resources.
Results of Operations
General. The Partnership’s results depend on the Trading Advisors and the ability of each Trading Advisor’s trading program to take advantage of price movements in the futures, forward and options markets. Blenheim trades its Global Markets Strategy—Futures/FX on behalf of the Partnership. The objective of the Global Markets Strategy is to capture substantial profits through the establishment of risk-controlled, strategic investment positions in markets where Blenheim has identified an unsustainable level of market disequilibrium that has not been reflected in the current market price. The essence of Blenheim’s trading approach is its ability to use discretion in formulating the most effective mix of trading methodologies, investment vehicles, and markets to maintain performance objectives. As trading opportunities are identified, Blenheim analyzes potential trading applications in order to achieve maximum capital appreciation with prudent risk management procedures.
Aventis trades its Aventis Barbarian Program on behalf of the Partnership. The Aventis Barbarian Program is based on an ensemble of three discretionary subprograms: spreads, flat price directional, and options trading. This type of trading is based primarily on the fundamentals of the market (i.e., changes in supply or demand of a commodity). It will also include supply and demand of the pit (i.e., discovery of over bought and over sold conditions).
- 19 -
PGR trades its PGR Mayfair Investment Program (formerly known as PGR Mayfair Program) on behalf of the Partnership. PGR’s futures investment program seeks to profit over the medium term by exploiting inefficiencies in futures and forward markets across a broad range of asset classes and geographic regions. Proprietary models developed by the founding partners are implemented in an in-house trading system which systematically processes real-time data and executes trades automatically on electronic future exchanges and foreign exchange trading platforms.
The following chart sets forth the percentage and the amount of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to each Trading Advisor for the periods ending September 30, 2014 and June 30, 2014, respectively, and the change during the applicable period.
|
Trading Advisor
|
Allocations as of
September 30,
2014 (%)
|
Allocations as of
June 30,
2014 (%)
|
Allocations as of
September 30,
2014 ($)
|
Allocations as of June 30,
2014 ($)
|
Change during the period (%)
|
|
Blenheim
|
80.59
|
84.87
|
34,037,153
|
40,427,249
|
(15.81)
|
|
Aventis
|
9.55
|
6.12
|
4,031,514
|
2,915,377
|
38.28
|
|
PGR
|
9.86
|
9.01
|
4,167,676
|
4,290,241
|
(2.86)
|
The following presents a summary of the Partnership’s operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, and a general discussion of its trading activities during each period. It is important to note, however, that the Trading Advisors trade in various markets at different times and that prior activity in a particular market does not mean that such market will be actively traded by the Trading Advisors or will be profitable in the future. Consequently, the results of operations of the Partnership are difficult to discuss other than in the context of the Trading Advisors’ trading activities on behalf of the Partnership during the period in question. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
- 20 -
The Partnership’s results of operations set forth in the financial statements on pages 2 through 16 of this report are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, which require the use of certain accounting policies that affect the amounts reported in these financial statements, including the following: the contracts the Partnership trades are accounted for on a trade-date basis and marked to market on a daily basis. The difference between their original contract value and fair value is recorded on the Statements of Income and Expenses as “Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investment in BHM I, LLC”, “Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investment in PGR Master Fund” and “Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investment in MB Master Fund” for open contracts and recorded as “Net realized trading gain on investment in BHM I, LLC”, “Net realized trading gain on investment in MB Master Fund” and “Net realized trading gain (loss) on investment in PGR Master Fund” when open positions are closed out. The sum of these amounts constitutes the Partnership’s trading results. The market value of a futures contract is the settlement price on the exchange on which that futures contract is traded on a particular day. The value of a foreign currency forward contract is based on the spot rate as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.), the close of the business day. Interest income, as well as management fees, incentive fees, and brokerage fees, of the Partnership are recorded on an accrual basis.
Management of Ceres believes that, based on the nature of the operations of the Partnership, no assumptions relating to the application of critical accounting policies other than those presently used could reasonably affect reported amounts.
- 21 -
For the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2014
The Partnership recorded total trading results including interest income totaling $(621,928) and expenses totaling $492,112, resulting in a net loss of $1,114,040 for the three months ended September 30, 2014.
The Partnership’s net asset value per Unit decreased from $15.14 at June 30, 2014 to $14.74 at September 30, 2014.
During the third quarter, the Partnership posted a loss in net asset value per Unit as trading gains in the agricultural, currency, and global stock index sectors were more than offset by trading losses in the metals, energy, and global interest rate sectors. The most significant losses were incurred within the metals sector, primarily during September, from long positions in palladium futures as prices declined on signs that European demand for the metal is faltering. Additional losses in this sector were recorded from positions in platinum, nickel, and tin futures. Within the energy sector, losses were incurred during July and September from long positions in crude oil and its related products as prices declined on concern global supply growth will outpace demand. Within the global interest rate sector, losses were incurred during August from short positions in U.S. fixed income futures as prices advanced as resurgent financial stress in Europe spurred demand for the relative “safety” of U.S. government debt. A portion of the Partnership’s losses for the quarter was offset by gains experienced in the agricultural sector, primarily during September, from short positions in soybean futures as prices declined amid prospects for record global crops and decreasing demand for supplies from the U.S. Additional gains in this sector were recorded from long positions in cocoa futures. Within the currency sector, gains were experienced primarily during September from short positions in the euro versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the U.S. dollar advanced. The dollar’s strength was precipitated by the U.S. employment rate, which fell to its lowest level since 2008 and the economy
- 22 -
added more jobs than forecast, bolstering the case for the U.S. Federal Reserve to raise interest rates next year. Additional gains in this sector were recorded from positions in the Brazilian real, South African rand, and Japanese yen. Within the global stock index sector, gains were experienced during August from long positions in U.S. equity index futures as prices moved higher after the U.S. Commerce Department released reports that showed the U.S. economy expanded more than previously forecast during the second quarter.
The Partnership recorded total trading results including interest income totaling $5,944,078 and expenses totaling $2,014,406, resulting in net income of $3,929,672 for the nine months ended September 30, 2014.
The Partnership’s net asset value per Unit increased from $13.64 at December 31, 2013 to $14.74 at September 30, 2014.
During the first nine months of the year, the Partnership posted a gain in net asset value per Unit as profits in the agricultural, metals, global stock index, and currency sectors more than offset losses in the global interest rate and energy sectors. The most significant gains were experienced within the agricultural sector during January, May, July, and September from long positions in cocoa futures as prices continued to advance as speculation mounted that surging demand will outstrip supplies. Within the metals sector, gains were experienced during February, March, April, and May from long positions in palladium futures as prices advanced on concern that sanctions against Russia, the world’s biggest supplier of the metal, will trim supplies. This supply threat comes as miners continued to strike in South Africa, the world’s second-biggest palladium producer. Within the global stock index sector, gains were experienced during February from long positions in U.S. and European equity index futures as prices advanced amid improving U.S. and European consumer confidence and speculation the Federal Reserve was going to continue to support the
- 23 -
U.S. economy. Within the currency sector, gains were experienced primarily during September from short positions in the euro versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the U.S. dollar advanced. The dollar’s strength was precipitated by the U.S. employment rate, which fell to its lowest level since 2008 and the economy added more jobs than forecast, bolstering the case for the U.S. Federal Reserve to raise interest rates next year. Additional gains in this sector were recorded from positions in the Brazilian real, South African rand, and Japanese yen. A portion of the Partnership’s gains during the first nine months of the year was offset by trading losses within the global interest rate sector, primarily during August, from short positions in U.S. fixed income futures as prices advanced as resurgent financial stress in Europe spurred demand for the relative “safety” of U.S. government debt. Within the energy sector, losses were incurred during July and September from long positions in crude oil and its related products as prices declined on concern global supply growth will outpace demand.
For the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2013
The Partnership recorded total trading results including interest income totaling $2,742,750 and expenses totaling $1,319,437, resulting in an income of $1,423,313 for the three months ended September 30, 2013.
The Partnership’s net asset value per Unit increased from $13.53 at June 30, 2013 to $13.86 at September 30, 2013.
During the third quarter, the Partnership posted a gain in net asset value as trading gains in agriculturals, metals, and global stock indices offset losses from trading energies and currencies. Trading results from the global interest rate sector were relatively flat for the quarter and had no material impact on the Fund’s performance. The most significant gains were experienced within the agricultural markets during July
- 24 -
and September from long positions in cocoa futures as prices advanced as bean processing in Asia unexpectedly increased in the second quarter, signaling higher demand for the commodity. Additional gains were experienced from long positions in cocoa futures as prices climbed higher on concern dry weather in West Africa, the world’s top growing region for cocoa, may damage the next crop. Within the metals sector, gains were experienced during July and August from long positions in platinum and palladium futures as prices advanced amid reports of a surge in automobile sales in the U.S. Additional gains were experienced from long positions in platinum and palladium as prices advanced amid speculation demand for the metal will outpace supply as labor strikes and rising mining costs in South Africa curb output. Within the global stock index sector, gains were experienced primarily during July from long positions in U.S. and European equity index futures as prices advanced amid optimism central banks will maintain loose monetary policies to boost economic growth. A portion of the Partnership’s gains during the quarter was offset by losses incurred within the energy sector, primarily during July,
from short positions in crude oil and its related products as prices advanced after a government report showed U.S. inventories decreased more than expected as refineries boosted fuel production. Within the currency sector, losses were incurred during July from short positions in the euro versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the euro advanced after purchasing-manager indexes showed manufacturing in the currency bloc unexpectedly expanded in July, bolstering demand for the region’s assets.
The Partnership recorded total trading results including interest income totaling $2,521,839 and expenses totaling $4,359,476, resulting in a net loss of $1,837,637 for the nine months ended September 30, 2013.
The Partnership’s net asset value per Unit decreased from $14.25 at December 31, 2012 to $13.86 at September 30, 2013.
- 25 -
During the first nine months of the year, the Partnership posted a loss in net asset value as trading losses in energies, currencies, and global interest rates offset gains recorded from trading agriculturals, metals, and global stock indices. The most significant losses were incurred within the energy sector, primarily during July, from short positions in crude oil and its related products as prices advanced after a government report showed U.S. inventories decreased more than expected as refineries boosted fuel production. Within the currency sector, losses were incurred primarily during June from short positions in the Japanese yen versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the yen rose on speculation the Bank of Japan may limit its monetary stimulus program to a two-year period. Meanwhile, long positions in the Swiss franc, euro, and British pound also recorded losses during June as the value of these European currencies moved lower relative to the U.S. dollar during the latter half of the month on concern of weakness in European economies. Within the global interest rate sector, losses were incurred primarily during February from short futures positions in U.S. government bonds and notes as prices rose after U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, announced that trailing inflation allowed the central bank to continue its bond buying program. Additional losses from short futures positions in U.S. government bonds and notes were experienced during March as prices advanced in the latter half of the month on concerns economic uncertainty in Cyprus would deepen Europe’s debt crisis. The Partnership’s losses during the first nine months of the year were offset by gains experienced within the agricultural markets, primarily during July and September, from long positions in cocoa futures as prices advanced as bean processing in Asia unexpectedly increased in the second quarter, signaling higher demand for the chocolate ingredient. Additional gains were experienced from long positions in cocoa futures as prices climbed higher on concern dry weather in West Africa, the world’s top growing region for cocoa, may damage the next crop. Within the metals sector, gains were experienced during July and August from
- 26 -
long positions in platinum and palladium futures as prices advanced amid reports of a surge in automobile sales in the U.S. Additional gains were experienced from long positions in platinum and palladium as prices advanced amid speculation demand for the metal will outpace supply as labor strikes and rising mining costs in South Africa curb output. Within the global stock index sector, gains were experienced primarily during April from long positions in U.S. and Pacific Rim equity index futures as prices rose amid optimism central banks will maintain loose monetary policies to boost economic growth.
Item 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Introduction
The Partnership is a commodity pool engaged primarily in the speculative trading of futures, forwards and options. The market-sensitive instruments held by the Partnership are acquired for speculative trading purposes only and, as a result, all or substantially all of the Partnership’s assets are at risk of trading loss. Unlike an operating company, the risk of market-sensitive instruments is inherent to the primary business activity of the Partnership.
The futures, forwards and options on such contracts traded by the Partnership involve varying degrees of related market risk. Market risk is often dependent upon changes in the level or volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, and prices of financial instruments and commodities, factors that result in frequent changes in the fair value of the Partnership’s open positions, and consequently in its earnings, whether realized or unrealized, and cash flow. Gains and losses on open positions of exchange-traded futures, exchange-traded forward, and exchange-traded futures-styled options contracts are settled daily through
- 27 -
variation margin. Gains and losses on off-exchange-traded forward currency contracts and forward
currency options contracts are settled upon termination of the contract. Gains and losses on off-exchange-traded forward currency options contracts are settled on an agreed-upon settlement date.
The Partnership’s total market risk may increase or decrease as it is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the diversification among the Partnership’s open positions, the volatility present within the markets, and the liquidity of the markets.
The face value of the market sector instruments held by the Partnership is typically many times the applicable margin requirements. Margin requirements generally range between 2% and 15% of contract face value. Additionally, the use of leverage causes the face value of the market sector instruments held by the Partnership typically to be many times the total capitalization of the Partnership.
The Partnership’s past performance is no guarantee of its future results. Any attempt to numerically quantify the Partnership’s market risk is limited by the uncertainty of its speculative trading. The Partnership’s speculative trading and use of leverage may cause future losses and volatility (i.e., “risk of
ruin”) that far exceed the Partnership’s experience to date as discussed under the “Partnership’s Value at Risk in Different Market Sectors” section and significantly exceed the Value at Risk (“VaR”) tables disclosed.
Limited partners will not be liable for losses exceeding the current net asset value of their investment.
- 28 -
Quantifying the Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk
The following quantitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor from civil liability provided for such statements by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (set forth in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)). All quantitative disclosures in this section are deemed to be forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor, except for statements of historical fact.
The Partnership accounts for open positions on the basis of fair value accounting principles. Any loss in the market value of the Partnership’s open positions is directly reflected in the Partnership’s earnings and cash flow.
The Partnership’s risk exposure in the market sectors traded by the Trading Advisors is estimated below in terms of VaR. Please note that the VaR model is used to numerically quantify market risk for
historic reporting purposes only and is not utilized by either Ceres or the Trading Advisors in their daily risk management activities.
VaR is a measure of the maximum amount which the Partnership could reasonably be expected to lose in a given market sector. However, the inherent uncertainty of the Partnership’s speculative trading and the recurrence of market movements far exceeding expectations in the markets traded by the Partnership
could result in actual trading or non-trading losses far beyond the indicated VaR of the Partnership’s experience to date (i.e., “risk of ruin”). In light of the foregoing, as well as the risks and uncertainties
- 29 -
intrinsic to all future projections, the inclusion of the quantification in this section should not be considered to constitute any assurance or representation that the Partnership’s losses in any market sector will be limited to VaR or by the Partnership’s attempts to manage its market risk.
Exchange maintenance margin requirements have been used by the Partnership as the measure of its VaR. Maintenance margin requirements are set by exchanges to equal or exceed the maximum losses reasonably expected to be incurred in the fair value of any given contract in 95% - 99% of any one-day interval. Maintenance margin has been used rather than the more generally available initial margin, because initial margin includes a credit risk component, which is not relevant to VaR.
The Partnership’s Value at Risk in Different Market Sectors
The following tables indicate the trading VaR associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, and the highest, lowest and average values during the three months ended September 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. There has been no material change in the trading VaR information previously disclosed in the Form 10-K.
- 30 -
As of September 30, 2014, the Partnership’s total capitalization was approximately $42 million.
September 30, 2014
|
Primary Market
|
% of Total
|
|
|
Risk Category
|
VaR
|
Capitalization
|
|
Currency
|
$791,828
|
1.87%
|
|
Interest Rate
|
145,831
|
0.35%
|
|
Equity
|
505,195
|
1.20%
|
|
Commodity
|
1,176,021
|
2.78%
|
|
Total
|
$2,618,875
|
6.20%
|
Three Months Ended September 30, 2014
|
Market Sector
|
High VaR
|
Low VaR
|
Average VaR*
|
|
Currency
|
$871,753
|
$418,996
|
$526,853
|
|
Interest Rate
|
$682,811
|
$143,569
|
$451,333
|
|
Equity
|
$817,669
|
$346,540
|
$542,545
|
|
Commodity
|
$4,420,149
|
$1,176,021
|
$3,667,079
|
* Average month-end VaR.
As of December 31, 2013, the Partnership’s total capitalization was approximately $53 million.
December 31, 2013
|
Primary Market
|
% of
|
|
|
Risk Category
|
VaR
|
Total Capitalization
|
|
Currency
|
$105,583
|
0.20%
|
|
Interest Rate
|
61,788
|
0.12%
|
|
Equity
|
517,311
|
0.98%
|
|
Commodity
|
5,449,549
|
10.29%
|
|
Total
|
$6,134,231
|
11.59%
|
- 31 -
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2013
|
Market Sector
|
High VaR
|
Low VaR
|
Average VaR*
|
|
Currency
|
$1,151,830
|
$48,843
|
$321,931
|
|
Interest Rate
|
$1,125,829
|
$42,982
|
$379,348
|
|
Equity
|
$1,201,884
|
$192,682
|
$557,496
|
|
Commodity
|
$6,739,272
|
$3,293,049
|
$4,890,265
|
|
*Average month-end VaR.
|
Limitations on Value at Risk as an Assessment of Market Risk
VaR models permit estimation of a portfolio’s aggregate market risk exposure, incorporating a range of varied market risks, reflect risk reduction due to portfolio diversification or hedging activities, and can cover a wide range of portfolio assets. However, VaR risk measures should be viewed in light of the methodology’s limitations, which include, but may not be limited to, the following:
|
·
|
past changes in market risk factors will not always result in accurate predictions of the distributions and correlations of future market movements;
|
|
·
|
changes in portfolio value caused by market movements may differ from those of the VaR model;
|
|
·
|
VaR results reflect past market fluctuations applied to current trading positions while future risk depends on future positions;
|
|
·
|
VaR using a one-day time horizon does not fully capture the market risk of positions that cannot be liquidated or hedged within one day; and
|
|
·
|
the historical market risk factor data used for VaR estimation may provide only limited insight into losses that could be incurred under certain unusual market movements.
|
- 32 -
Non-Trading Risk
The Partnership has non-trading market risk on its foreign cash balances not needed for margin. These balances and any market risk they may represent are immaterial.
A decline in short term interest rates would result in a decline in the Partnership’s cash management income. This cash flow risk is not considered to be material.
Materiality, as used throughout this section, is based on an assessment of reasonably possible market movements and any associated potential losses, taking into account the leverage, optionality, and multiplier features of the Partnership’s market-sensitive instruments, in relation to the Partnership’s net assets.
Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Primary Trading Risk Exposures
The following qualitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures - except for (A) those disclosures that are statements of historical fact and (B) the descriptions of how the Partnership manages its primary market risk exposures - constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning
of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. The Partnership’s primary market risk exposures, as well as the strategies used and to be used by Ceres and the Trading Advisors for managing such exposures, are subject to numerous uncertainties, contingencies and risks, any one of which could cause the actual results of the Partnership’s risk controls to differ materially from the objectives of such strategies. Government interventions, defaults and expropriations, illiquid markets, the emergence of dominant fundamental factors, political upheavals, changes in historical price relationships, an influx of new market participants, increased regulation, and many other factors could
- 33 -
result in material losses, as well as in material changes to the risk exposures and the risk management strategies of the Partnership. Investors must be prepared to lose all or substantially all of their investment in the Partnership.
Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Means of Managing Risk Exposure
The Partnership and the Trading Advisors, separately, attempt to manage the risk of the Partnership’s open positions in essentially the same manner in all market categories traded. Ceres attempts to manage market exposure by diversifying the Partnership’s assets among different market sectors and trading approaches through the selection of the commodity trading advisors and by daily monitoring of their performance. In addition, the Trading Advisors establish diversification guidelines, often set in terms of the maximum margin to be committed to positions in any one market sector or market-sensitive instrument.
Ceres monitors and controls the risk of the Partnership’s non-trading instrument, cash. Cash is the only Partnership investment directed by Ceres, rather than the Trading Advisors.
|
Item 4.
|
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
|
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Under the supervision and with the participation of the management of Ceres, Ceres’ Director (Ceres’ principal executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Ceres’ principal financial officer) have evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation 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 September 30,
- 34 -
2014. The Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information the Partnership is required to disclose in the reports that the Partnership files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time period specified in the applicable rules and forms. Based on this evaluation, the Director and Chief Financial Officer of Ceres have concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures of the Partnership were effective at September 30, 2014.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There have been no changes during the period covered by this quarterly report in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act) that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.
Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls
Any control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide reasonable (not absolute) assurance that its objectives will be met. Furthermore, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected.
- 35 -
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 Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 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 (the “SEC”) 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, we refer you to the “Legal Proceedings” section of Morgan Stanley’s SEC 10-K filings for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009.
- 36 -
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 National Futures Association.
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,
- 37 -
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement is subject to approval by the court, which has set a final approval hearing for December 18, 2014.
On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against MS&Co. and an affiliate and other defendants 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 $54 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss for this action up to the difference between the $54 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates 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.
- 38 -
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, which were denied. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in these cases was approximately $291 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 $291 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
- 39 -
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 9, 2010 and February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed two separate complaints against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaints assert claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiff’s affiliates and allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. and/or its affiliates or sold to plaintiff’s affiliates’ clients by MS&Co. and/or its affiliates in the two matters was approximately $263 million. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank (“CDIB”) filed a complaint against MS&Co. and an affiliate, which is styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., which is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (“Supreme Court of NY, NY County”). The complaint relates to a $275 million credit default swap referencing the super senior portion of the STACK 2006-1 collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”). The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment and alleges that MS&Co. and/or its affiliate misrepresented the risks of the STACK 2006-1 CDO to CDIB, and that MS&Co. and/or its affiliate knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered
- 40 -
into the credit default swap with CDIB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CDIB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CDIB’s obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On February 28, 2011, the court presiding over this action denied MS&Co. and its affiliate’s s motion to dismiss the complaint and on March 21, 2011, MS&Co. and its affiliate appealed that order. On July 7, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the motion to dismiss. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. and/or its affiliate believes it and/or its affiliate could incur a loss of up to approximately $240 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.
On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a complaint against MS&Co. and its affiliates 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. and/or its affiliates 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. and its affiliates filed an 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 September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $55 million and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action
- 41 -
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. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates 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.
- 42 -
On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates 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. and/or its affiliates or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. and/or its affiliates 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. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against MS&Co. and its affiliates with respect to two of the securitizations at issue. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $66 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $66 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates 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.
- 43 -
On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain of its affiliates in the 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. and/or its affiliates was approximately $104 million. The complaint raises common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order MS&Co. and its affiliates appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, MS&Co. and its affiliates filed an answer to the amended complaint. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $82 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $82 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates may be entitled to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.
- 44 -
On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates 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. and/or its affiliates 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. and its affiliates filed an answer on August 17, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in July 2015. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $111 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $2 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $111 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates may be entitled to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed 17 complaints against numerous financial services companies, including MS&Co. and certain affiliates. A complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates and other defendants was filed in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator v. Morgan
- 45 -
Stanley et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of residential mortgage pass-through certificates with an original unpaid balance of approximately $11 billion. The complaint raised claims under federal and state securities laws and common law and seeks, among other things, rescission and compensatory and punitive damages. On February 7, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.
On 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
- 46 -
complaint. On October 7, 2014, the court denied MS&Co.’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment and granted its motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying permission for interlocutory appeal. On October 22, 2014, MS&Co. filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal with the appellate court. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in March 2015. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $44 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 $44 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.
On April 25, 2012, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain affiliates filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, styled Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to 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. and/or certain affiliates was approximately $758 million. The amended complaint raised common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, and aiding and abetting fraud and seeks, among other things, rescission, compensatory and/or rescissionary damages, as well as punitive damages, associated with plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On January 23, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle
- 47 -
the litigation. On April 25, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance of the action with prejudice.
On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a compl aint 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 RICO statute, 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 September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $613 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action up to the difference
- 48 -
between the $613 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates 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 June 5, 2012, MS&Co. consented to and became the subject of an Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions by The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to resolve allegations related to the failure of a salesperson to comply with exchange rules that prohibit off-exchange futures transactions unless there is an Exchange for Related Position (EFRP). Specifically, the CFTC found that from April 2008 through October 2009, MS&Co. violated Section 4c(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 1.38 by executing, processing and reporting numerous off-exchange futures trades to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) as EFRPs in violation of CME and CBOT rules because those trades lacked the corresponding and related cash, OTC swap, OTC option, or other OTC derivative position. In addition, the CFTC found that MS&Co. violated CFTC Regulation 166.3 by failing to supervise the handling of the trades at issue and failing to have adequate policies and procedures designed to detect and deter the violations of the Act and Regulations. Without admitting or denying the underlying allegations and without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, MS&Co. accepted and consented to entry of findings and the imposition of a cease and desist order, a fine of $5,000,000, and undertakings related to public statements, cooperation and payment of the fine. MS&Co. entered into corresponding and related settlements with the CME and CBOT in which the CME found that MS&Co. violated CME Rules 432.Q
- 49 -
and 538 and fined MS&Co. $750,000 and CBOT found that MS&Co. violated CBOT Rules 432.Q and 538 and fined MS&Co. $1,000,000.
On February 14, 2013, Bank Hapoalim B.M. filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, NY County, 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. and/or its affiliates to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. and its affiliates 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. On August 29, 2014, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint, and on September 18, 2014, the defendants filed a notice of appeal from the ruling denying their motion to dismiss. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $73 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $73 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.
- 50 -
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, NY County. 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. and/or its affiliates to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. and its affiliates 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. and its affiliates filed a renewed motion to dismiss with respect to two certificates at issue in the case. On October 13, 2014, MS&Co. filed its answer to the complaint. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $300 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $78 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $300 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates 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
- 51 -
residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. and/or its affiliates to plaintiffs was approximately $417 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. and its affiliates for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, violations of the Texas Securities Act, and violations of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953 and seeks, among other things, rescissionary 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 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, which was denied on September 30, 2014. At September 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $211 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $27 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it and/or its affiliates could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $211 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co. and/or its affiliates, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. and/or its affiliates 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.
- 52 -
On July 23, 2014, the SEC approved a settlement by MS&Co. and certain affiliates to resolve an investigation related to certain subprime RMBS transactions sponsored and underwritten by those entities in 2007. Pursuant to the settlement, MS&Co. and certain affiliates were charged with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, agreed to pay disgorgement and penalties in an amount of $275 million and neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings.
Item 1A. RISK FACTORS
There have been no material changes from the risk factors previously referenced in the Partnership’s Report on Form 10-K, as updated by the Partnership’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014.
Item 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
|
Item 6.
|
EXHIBITS
|
|
31.01
|
Certification of Director of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
31.02
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32.01
|
Certification of Director of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
32.02
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
- 53 -
|
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 Document
|
|
101.PRE*
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Document
|
|
101.DEF*
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Document
|
|
|
Notes to Exhibits List
|
* Submitted electronically herewith.
- 54 -
SIGNATURE
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.
|
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Strategic L.P.
|
||
|
(Registrant)
|
||
|
By:
|
Ceres Managed Futures LLC
|
|
|
(General Partner)
|
||
|
November 12, 2014
|
By:
|
/s/ Steven Ross
|
|
Steven Ross
|
||
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
||
The General Partner which signed the above is the only party authorized to act for the registrant. The registrant has no principal executive officer, principal financial officer, controller, or principal accounting officer and has no Board of Directors.
- 55 -