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

Attached files

file	filename
EX-32.1 - EX-32.1 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d944700dex321.htm
EX-31.2 - EX-31.2 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d944700dex312.htm
EX-32.2 - EX-32.2 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d944700dex322.htm
EX-31.1 - EX-31.1 - COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.	d944700dex311.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

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

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015

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

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 0-54753

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

20-4267496

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

c/o Ceres Managed Futures LLC

522 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10036

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(855) 672-4468

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Yes X No

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

Yes X No

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


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

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

Yes No X

As of July 31, 2015, 11,902.3408 Class A Limited Partnership Redeemable Units were outstanding and 112.0109 Class Z Limited Partnership Redeemable Units were outstanding.

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.

FORM 10-Q

INDEX


			Page
PART I - Financial Information:			Number

	Item 1.	Financial Statements:

		Statements of Financial Condition at June 30, 2015 (unaudited) and December 31, 2014	3

		Schedules of Investments at June 30, 2015 (unaudited) and December 31, 2014	4–5

		Statements of Income and Expenses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (unaudited)	6

		Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 (unaudited)	7

		Notes to Financial Statements (unaudited)	8–18

	Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	19–21

	Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	22–25

	Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	26

PART II - Other Information

	Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	27-35

	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	36

	Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	36

	Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities	36

	Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	36

	Item 5.	Other Information	37

	Item 6.	Exhibits	38-40

PART I

Item 1. Financial Statements

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Statements of Financial Condition


	(Unaudited)
	June 30, 2015		December 31, 2014
Assets:
Investment in Funds⁽¹⁾, at fair value (cost $15,255,017 and $15,495,382 at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively)	$	16,616,589	$	17,065,168
Redemptions receivable from Funds		—		1,342,427
Interest receivable		—		110
Cash		137,198		113,260

Total assets	$	16,753,787	$	18,520,965


Liabilities and Partners’ Capital:
Liabilities:
Accrued expenses:
Ongoing selling agent fee	$	27,202	$	30,028
Management fees		21,479		24,374
General Partner fees		13,824		15,330
Other		164,868		125,311
Redemptions payable to Limited Partners		324,393		290,488

Total liabilities		551,766		485,531


Partners’ Capital:
General Partner, Class A, 0.0000 Redeemable Units outstanding at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014		—		—
General Partner, Class Z, 192.1480 and 241.1440 Redeemable Units outstanding at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively		168,905		214,588
Limited Partners, Class A, 12,486.0258 and 13,562.5398 Redeemable Units outstanding at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively		15,934,655		17,698,651
Limited Partners, Class Z, 112.0109 and 137.3169 Redeemable Units outstanding at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively		98,461		122,195

Total partners’ capital		16,202,021		18,035,434

Total liabilities and partners’ capital	$	16,753,787	$	18,520,965

Class A, net asset value per Redeemable Unit	$	1,276.20	$	1,304.97

Class Z, net asset value per Redeemable Unit	$	879.03	$	889.87

(1) Defined in Note 1.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Schedule of Investments

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)


	Cost		Fair Value		% of Partners’ Capital
Investment in Funds
MB Master Fund L.P.	$	9,411,727	$	9,891,995		61.05	%
JEM Master Fund L.P.		5,843,290		6,724,594		41.51

Total investment in Funds, at fair value	$	15,255,017	$	16,616,589		102.56	%

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Schedule of Investments

December 31, 2014


	Cost		Fair Value		% of Partners’ Capital
Investment in Funds
MB Master Fund L.P.	$	7,944,768	$	8,268,092		45.84	%
JEM Master Fund L.P.		7,550,614		8,797,076		48.78

Total investment in Funds, at fair value	$	15,495,382	$	17,065,168		94.62	%

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Statements of Income and Expenses

(Unaudited)


	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2015			2014			2015			2014
Investment income:
Interest income from investment in Funds	$	325		$	857		$	735		$	2,941

Expenses:
Ongoing selling agent fees		84,597			101,631			176,075			231,940
Management fees		67,156			86,367			141,866			194,696
General Partner fees		42,980			52,061			89,542			118,505
Other		72,896			74,781			142,880			169,281

Total expenses		267,629			314,840			550,363			714,422

Net investment income (loss)		(267,304	)		(313,983	)		(549,628	)		(711,481	)

Trading Results:
Net realized gains (losses) on investment in Funds		129,605			50,573			416,103			(212,681	)
Net change in unrealized gains (losses) on investment in Funds		(803,662	)		(326,799	)		(208,214	)		(1,092,134	)

Total trading results		(674,057	)		(276,226	)		207,889			(1,304,815	)

Net income (loss)	$	(941,361	)	$	(590,209	)	$	(341,739	)	$	(2,016,296	)

Net income (loss) allocation by class:
Class A	$	(927,788	)	$	(578,530	)	$	(341,114	)	$	(1,979,334	)

Class Z	$	(13,573	)	$	(11,679	)	$	(625	)	$	(36,962	)

Net asset value per unit
Class A (12,486.0258 and 14,088.1818 Redeemable Units outstanding as of June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively)	$	1,276.20		$	1,299.62		$	1,276.20		$	1,299.62

Class Z (304.1589 and 562.1419 Redeemable Units outstanding as of June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively)	$	879.03		$	877.39		$	879.03		$	877.39

Net income (loss) per unit*
Class A	$	(71.53	)	$	(37.46	)	$	(28.77	)	$	(111.48	)

Class Z	$	(44.63	)	$	(20.77	)	$	(10.84	)	$	(65.75	)

Weighted average units outstanding
Class A		12,966.5068			15,428.3768			13,221.9555			17,204.9135

Class Z		304.1589			562.1419			329.6986			562.1419

*Represents the change in net asset value per unit during the period.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital

For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014

(Unaudited)


	Class A						Class Z						Total
	Amount			Units			Amount			Units			Amount			Units
Partners’ Capital, December 31, 2014	$	17,698,651			13,562.5398		$	336,783			378.4609		$	18,035,434			13,941.0007
Subscriptions — Limited Partners		455,997			338.5490			—			—			455,997			338.5490
Net income (loss)		(341,114	)		—			(625	)		—			(341,739	)		—
Redemptions — General Partner		—			—			(44,768	)		(48.9960	)		(44,768	)		(48.9960	)
Redemptions — Limited Partners		(1,878,879	)		(1,415.0630	)		(24,024	)		(25.3060	)		(1,902,903	)		(1,440.3690	)

Partners’ Capital, June 30, 2015	$	15,934,655			12,486.0258		$	267,366			304.1589		$	16,202,021			12,790.1847


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

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

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

1. Organization:

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

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

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

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

From inception until March 31, 2011, the Partnership offered two classes of Redeemable Units: “Class A” Redeemable Units and “Class B” Redeemable Units. As of March 31, 2011, the Partnership no longer offered Class B Redeemable Units. Beginning May 1, 2011, the Partnership began to offer two additional classes of Redeemable Units in addition to Class A Redeemable Units: “Class D” and “Class Z” Redeemable Units. Class Z Redeemable Units were first issued on October 1, 2011. As of June 30, 2015, there were no Class D Redeemable Units outstanding. Class A Redeemable Units, Class D Redeemable Units and Class Z Redeemable Units will each be referred to as a “Class” and collectively referred to as the “Classes.” The class of Redeemable Units that a limited partner receives upon a subscription will generally depend upon the amount invested in the Partnership or the status of the limited partner, although the General Partner may determine to offer any class of Redeemable Units to investors at its discretion. Class Z Redeemable Units are offered to certain employees of Morgan Stanley and its subsidiaries (and their family members).

As of June 30, 2015, the Partnership’s commodity broker was Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”), a registered futures commission merchant.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

As of June 30, 2015, all trading decisions were made for the Partnership by its two trading advisors (each an “Advisor”, and collectively the “Advisors”). JE Moody & Company LLC (“JE Moody”) and Aventis Asset Management, LLC (formerly known as Misfit Financial Group, LLC) (“Aventis”) have been selected by the General Partner as the major commodity trading advisors to the Partnership. In addition, the General Partner may allocate the Partnership’s assets to additional non-major trading advisors (i.e., commodity trading advisors allocated less than 10% of the Partnership’s assets) during the reporting period. Information about advisors that are allocated less than 10% of the Partnership’s assets may not be disclosed. The General Partner may allocate less than 10% of the Partnership’s assets to a new trading advisor or another trading program of a current Advisor at any time. The Advisors are not affiliated with one another, are not affiliated with the General Partner or MS&Co., and are not responsible for the organization or operation of the Partnership. The General Partner will generally allocate the assets of the Partnership to “established” trading advisors (i.e., advisors with established trading strategies), but may also allocate assets to “emerging” trading advisors (i.e., trading advisors in the process of developing and refining their trading strategies). The General Partner has selected and will select commodity trading advisors for the Partnership that it believes possess the potential to be successful traders. The Advisors have various levels of experience in speculatively trading commodity interests and have various levels of experience in managing client funds.

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

MB Master Fund L.P. (“MB Master”) and JEM Master Fund L.P. (“JEM Master”) have entered into a futures brokerage account agreement with MS&Co. The Partnership has entered into a futures brokerage account agreement with MS&Co. The Partnership, through its investment in MB Master and JEM Master (collectively, the “Funds”), pays MS&Co. trading fees for the clearing and, where applicable, execution of transactions as well as exchange, clearing, user, give-up, floor brokerage and National Futures Association fees (the “clearing fees”).

The Partnership has entered into a selling agent agreement with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (d/b/a Morgan Stanley Wealth Management) (“Morgan Stanley Wealth Management”) (the “Selling Agreement”). Under the Selling Agreement, the Partnership pays Morgan Stanley Wealth Management a monthly ongoing selling agent fee equal to (i) 2.0% per year of the adjusted net assets of Class A Redeemable Units and (ii) 0.75% per year of the adjusted net assets of Class D Redeemable Units. The Partnership does not pay an ongoing selling agent fee with respect to limited partners holding Class Z Redeemable Units. Morgan Stanley Wealth Management pays a portion of its ongoing selling agent fees to properly registered or exempted financial advisors who have sold Redeemable Units.

2. Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies:

The accompanying financial statements and accompanying notes are unaudited but, in the opinion of the General Partner, include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the Partnership’s financial condition at June 30, 2015, the results of its operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 and changes in partners’ capital for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014. These financial statements present the results of interim periods and do not include all disclosures normally provided in annual financial statements. These financial statements should be read together with the financial statements and notes included in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for the year ended December 31, 2014. The December 31, 2014 information has been derived from the audited financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014.

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

Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation. In the financial highlights of the Partnership, ongoing selling agent fees, which were previously included in net realized and unrealized gains (losses) per unit and excluded from expenses per unit, are now excluded from net realized and unrealized gains (losses) per unit and included in expenses per unit. This information was previously included as a footnote to the financial highlights table.

Amounts previously referred to as Administrative fees are now referred to as General Partner fees in these financial statements.

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

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

The financial statements of the Partnership have been prepared using the “Fund of Funds” approach, and accordingly, the Partnership’s pro-rata share of all revenue and expenses of the Funds is reflected as net change in unrealized gains (losses) on investment in Funds on the Statements of Income and Expenses. Contributions to and withdrawals from the Funds are recorded on the effective date. The Partnership records a realized gain or loss on its investments in the Funds as the difference between the redemption proceeds and the related cost of such investment. In determining the cost of such investments, the Partnership uses the average cost method. The Partnership maintains sufficient cash balances on hand to satisfy ongoing operating expenses for the Partnership. As of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Partnership’s cash balances were $137,198 and $113,260, respectively.

Partnership’s Investments: The Partnership’s investments in the Funds are stated at fair value, which are based on (1) the Partnership’s net contribution to each Fund and (2) its allocated share of the undistributed profits and losses, including realized gains/losses and the change in net unrealized gains/losses, of each Fund. Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, “Fair Value Measurement,” as amended, permits, as a practical expedient, the Partnership to measure the fair value of its investments in the Funds on the basis of the net asset value per share (or its equivalent) if the net asset value per share of such investments is calculated in a manner consistent with the measurement principles of ASC Topic 946 “Financial Services – Investment Companies” as of the Partnership’s reporting date.

Funds’ Investments: Fair value of exchange-traded futures, options and forward contracts is determined by the various exchanges, and reflects the settlement price for each contract as of the close of business on the last business day of the reporting period. U.S. Treasury bills are stated at amortized cost, which approximates fair value.

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

Investment Company Status: Effective January 1, 2014, the Partnership adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2013-08, “Financial Services — Investment Companies (Topic 946): Amendments to the Scope, Measurement and Disclosure Requirements” and based on the General Partner’s assessment, the Partnership has been deemed to be an investment company since inception. Accordingly, the Partnership follows the investment company accounting and reporting guidance of Topic 946 and reflects its investments at fair value with unrealized gains and losses resulting from changes in fair value reflected in the Statements of Income and Expenses.

Income Taxes: Income taxes have not been listed as each partner is individually liable for the taxes, if any, on its share of the Partnership’s income and expenses. The General Partner concluded that no provision for income tax is required in the Partnership’s financial statements. The Partnership files U.S. federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The 2011 through 2014 tax years remain subject to examination by U.S. federal and most state tax authorities. The General Partner does not believe that there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability.

Net Income (loss) per unit: Net income (loss) per unit is calculated in accordance with investment company guidance. See Note 3, “Financial Highlights.”

Recent Accounting Pronouncement: In May 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued ASU 2015-07, “Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent),” which relates to disclosures for investments that calculate net asset value per share (potentially fund of fund structures). The ASU requires investments for which the practical expedient is used to measure fair value at Net Asset Value (“NAV”) be removed from the fair value hierarchy. Instead, an entity is required to include those investments as a reconciling line item so that the total fair value amount of investments in the disclosure is consistent with the amount on the balance sheet. Further, the ASU removes the requirement to make certain disclosures for all investments that are eligible to be measured at fair value using the net asset value per share practical expedient. Rather, those disclosures are limited to investments for which the entity has elected to measure the fair value using the practical expedient. The standard is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption is permitted. The Partnership has elected to adopt the guidance as of June 30, 2015. As a result of this adoption, the investments that are measured at fair value based on the net asset value per share (or its equivalent) practical expedient have been removed from the fair value hierarchy in all periods presented in these financial statements.

There have been no material changes with respect to the Partnership’s critical accounting policies as reported in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

3. Financial Highlights:

Financial highlights for each limited partner Class as a whole for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014 were as follows:


	Three Months Ended June 30, 2015						Three Months Ended June 30, 2014						Six Months Ended June 30, 2015						Six Months Ended June 30, 2014
	Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z
Net realized and unrealized gains (losses)	$	(51.15	)	$	(35.12	)	$	(17.46	)	$	(11.75	)	$	12.29		$	8.15		$	(70.81	)	$	(47.48	)
Net investment loss		(20.38	)		(9.51	)		(20.00	)		(9.02	)		(41.06	)		(18.99	)		(40.67	)		(18.27	)

Increase (decrease) for the period		(71.53	)		(44.63	)		(37.46	)		(20.77	)		(28.77	)		(10.84	)		(111.48	)		(65.75	)
Net asset value per unit, beginning of period		1,347.73			923.66			1,337.08			898.16			1,304.97			889.87			1,411.10			943.14

Net asset value per unit, end of period	$	1,276.20		$	879.03		$	1,299.62		$	877.39		$	1,276.20		$	879.03		$	1,299.62		$	877.39


	Three Months Ended June 30, 2015						Three Months Ended June 30, 2014						Six Months Ended June 30, 2015						Six Months Ended June 30, 2014
	Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z			Class A			Class Z
Ratios to average net assets:¹
Net investment loss ²		(6.3	)%		(4.2	)%		(6.3	)%		(4.1	)%		(6.3	)%		(4.3	)%		(6.3	)%		(4.1	)%
Operating expenses		6.3	%		4.2	%		6.3	%		4.1	%		6.3	%		4.3	%		6.3	%		4.1	%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%

Total expenses		6.3	%		4.2	%		6.3	%		4.1	%		6.3	%		4.3	%		6.3	%		4.1	%

Total return:
Total return before incentive fees		(5.3	)%		(4.8	)%		(2.8	)%		(2.3	)%		(2.2	)%		(1.2	)%		(7.9	)%		(7.0	)%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%		—	%

Total return after incentive fees		(5.3	)%		(4.8	)%		(2.8	)%		(2.3	)%		(2.2	)%		(1.2	)%		(7.9	)%		(7.0	)%

¹	Annualized (except for incentive fees).

²	Interest income less total expenses.

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

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

4. Trading Activities:

The Partnership was formed for the purpose of trading contracts in a variety of commodity interests, including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments, through its investments in the Funds. The Partnership’s pro-rata share of the results of the Funds’ trading activities are shown on the Partnership’s Statements of Income and Expenses.

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

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

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

There were no direct investments at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

5. Fair Value Measurements:

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

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

The Funds consider prices for exchange-traded commodity futures, forward, swap and option contracts to be based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1). The values of U.S. Treasury bills, non-exchange-traded forward, swap and certain option contracts for which market quotations are not readily available are priced by broker-dealers that derive fair values for those assets and liabilities from observable inputs (Level 2).

As of and for the periods ended June 30, 2015 and Dec 31, 2014, the Funds’ investments were classified as either Level 1 or Level 2 and did not hold any derivative instruments that were priced at fair value using unobservable inputs through the application of the General Partner’s assumptions and internal valuation pricing models (Level 3). Transfers between levels are recognized at the end of the reporting period. During the six months ended June 30, 2015 and the twelve months ended December 31, 2014, there were no transfers of assets or liabilities between Level 1 and Level 2.

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

6. Investments in Funds:

On May 1, 2011, the assets allocated to Krom River Investment Management (Cayman) Limited (“Krom River Management”) and Krom River Trading A.G. (“Krom River Trading” and together with Krom River Management, “Krom River”) for trading were invested in KR Master Fund L.P. (“KR Master”), a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of Delaware. References to the Funds in this report may also include, as relevant, reference to KR Master. References to the Advisors in this report may also include, as relevant, reference to Krom River. The Partnership purchased an interest in KR Master with cash equal to $13,913,306. KR Master permitted accounts managed by Krom River using the Krom River Commodity Program, a proprietary, discretionary trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner was also the general partner of KR Master. The Partnership fully redeemed its investment in KR Master on December 31, 2014, for cash equal to $1,342,427.

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

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

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

The General Partner is not aware of any material changes to any of the trading programs discussed above during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2015.

The Funds’ trading of futures, forward, swap and option contracts, if applicable, on commodities is done primarily on U.S. and foreign commodity exchanges. The Funds engage in such trading through commodity brokerage accounts maintained with MS&Co.

A limited partner of the Funds may withdraw all or part of its capital contribution and undistributed profits, if any, from the Funds as of the end of any day (the “Redemption Date”), provided a request for redemption has been made to the General Partner at least 3 days in advance of the Redemption Date. Such withdrawals are classified as a liability when the limited partner elects to redeem and informs the Funds.

Management and incentive fees are charged at the Partnership level. All clearing fees are borne by the Funds. Other expenses are borne by the Funds, and also charged directly at the Partnership level. All other fees and commissions are charged at the Partnership level.

At June 30, 2015, the Partnership owned approximately 4.6% and 34.7% of MB Master and JEM Master, respectively. At December 31, 2014, the Partnership owned approximately 3.6% and 29.4% of MB Master and JEM Master, respectively. It is the intention of the Partnership to continue to invest in the Funds. The performance of the Partnership is directly affected by the performance of the Funds.

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


	June 30, 2015
	Total Assets		Total Liabilities		Total Partners’ Capital
MB Master	$	227,094,922	$	10,362,624	$	216,732,298
JEM Master		19,423,373		37,883		19,385,490

	December 31, 2014
	Total Assets		Total Liabilities		Total Partners’ Capital
MB Master	$	251,452,587	$	23,303,716	$	228,148,871
KR Master		12,415,386		12,415,386		—
JEM Master		29,918,670		42,666		29,876,004

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

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


	For the three months ended June 30, 2015
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
MB Master	$	(877,479	)	$	(332,117	)	$	(1,209,596	)
JEM Master		(262,052	)		(1,476,708	)		(1,738,760	)

	For the six months ended June 30, 2015
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
MB Master	$	(1,626,844	)	$	6,631,081		$	5,004,237
JEM Master		(518,939	)		1,019,109			500,170

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

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

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

7. Financial Instrument Risks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credit risk is the possibility that a loss may occur due to the failure of a counterparty to perform according to the terms of a contract. The Partnership’s/Funds’ risk of loss in the event of a counterparty default is typically limited to the amounts recognized in the Statements of Financial Condition and is not represented by the contract or notional amounts of the instruments. The Partnership’s/Funds’ risk of loss is reduced through the use of legally enforceable master netting agreements with counterparties that permit the Partnership/Funds to offset unrealized gains and losses and other assets and liabilities with such counterparties upon the occurrence of certain events. The Partnership/Funds have credit risk and concentration risk as MS&Co. or an MS&Co. affiliate is the sole counterparty or broker with respect to the Partnership’s and the Funds’ assets. Credit risk with respect to exchange-traded instruments is reduced to the extent that, through MS&Co. or an MS&Co. affiliate, the Partnership’s/Funds’ counterparty is an exchange or clearing organization.

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

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

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

Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2015

(Unaudited)

8. Subsequent Events:

The General Partner evaluates events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued. The General Partner has assessed the subsequent events through the date of issuance and has determined that, other than the event listed below, there were no subsequent events requiring adjustment of, or disclosure, in the financial statements.

On or about July 31, 2015, the General Partner delegated certain administrative functions to SS&C Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, currently doing business as SS&C GlobeOp (the “Administrator”). Pursuant to a Master Services Agreement, the Administrator will furnish certain administrative, accounting, regulatory, reporting, tax and other services as agreed from time to time. In addition, the Administrator will maintain certain books and records of the Partnership. The costs of retaining the Administrator will be allocated among the pools operated by the General Partner, including the Partnership. The General Partner does not expect that such additional expense will have a material impact on the Partnership’s break even point.

Item 2.

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

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services. Its only assets are its investments in the Funds, interest receivable and cash. The Funds do not engage in sales of goods or services. The Funds’ only assets are their equity in trading accounts, consisting of cash and cash margin, net unrealized appreciation on open futures contracts, net unrealized appreciation on forward contracts, commodity options purchased at fair value and U.S. Treasury bills at fair value, if applicable. Because of the low margin deposits normally required in commodity futures trading, relatively small price movements may result in substantial losses to the Partnership/Funds. While substantial losses could lead to a material decrease in liquidity, no such illiquidity occurred in the second quarter of 2015.

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

For the six months ended June 30, 2015, Partnership capital decreased 10.2% from $18,035,434 to $16,202,021. This decrease was attributable to redemptions of 1,415.0630 Class A Redeemable Units totaling $1,878,879, redemptions of 25.3060 Class Z Redeemable Units totaling $24,024 and redemptions of 48.9960 General Partner Class Z Redeemable Units totaling $44,768, coupled with a net loss of $341,739. This was partially offset with subscriptions for 338.5490 Class A Redeemable Units totaling $455,997. Future redemptions can impact the amount of funds available for investment in the Funds in subsequent periods.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the General Partner to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expense during the reporting period. The General Partner believes that the estimates utilized in preparing the financial statements are reasonable. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The Partnership’s significant accounting policies are described in detail in Note 2 of the Financial Statements.

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

Results of Operations

During the second quarter of 2015, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class A Redeemable Unit decreased 5.3% from $1,347.73 to $1,276.20, as compared to a decrease of 2.8% in the second quarter of 2014. During the second quarter of 2015, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class Z Redeemable Unit decreased 4.8% from $923.66 to $879.03, as compared to a decrease of 2.3% in the second quarter of 2014. The Partnership experienced a net trading loss through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the second quarter of 2015 of $674,057. Losses were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of commodity futures in energy, grains, livestock, metals and softs. The Partnership experienced a net trading loss through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the second quarter of 2014 of $276,226. Losses were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of commodity futures in energy, and were partially offset by gains in grains, livestock, metals and softs.

The most significant losses were incurred within the energy markets during May from short positions in crude oil futures as prices advanced after industry reports indicated drillers further reduced the number of active rigs in the U.S. during April. Additional losses in this sector were experienced during June from short positions in natural gas futures as prices rallied as higher-than-normal temperatures in the eastern U.S. spurred gas demand in the first half of the month. Within the metals markets, losses were recorded primarily during June from long positions in nickel futures as prices moved lower on reports of high global inventories and weakening industrial demand in China. Losses were experienced within the livestock markets during April and May from short positions in lean hog futures as prices rose as an avian bird virus appeared in farms in the Midwest, sparking concern of potential pig herd infection. Additional losses in this sector were experienced during May from short positions in live cattle futures as prices moved higher. Within the grains markets, losses were incurred primarily during April from long positions in soybean and wheat futures as prices declined after the Department of Agriculture released a report which indicated U.S. grain stockpiles were at their highest levels in 28 years.

During the Partnership’s six months ended June 30, 2015, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class A Redeemable Unit decreased 2.2% from $1,304.97 to $1,276.20, as compared to a decrease of 7.9% in the six months ended June 30, 2014. During the Partnership’s six months ended June 30, 2015, the Partnership’s net asset value per Class Z Redeemable Unit decreased 1.2% from $889.87 to $879.03, as compared to a decrease of 7.0% in the six months ended June 30, 2014. The Partnership experienced a net trading gain through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the six months ended June 30, 2015 of $207,889. Gains were primarily attributable to the Fund’s trading of commodity futures in energy, and were partially offset by losses in grains, livestock, metals and softs. The Partnership experienced a net trading loss through its investment in the Funds before fees and expenses in the six months ended June 30, 2014 of $1,304,815. Losses were primarily attributable to the Funds’ trading of commodity futures in energy and grains, and were partially offset by gains in livestock, metals and softs.

The most significant losses were incurred in the livestock markets during March from short positions in live cattle futures as prices moved higher after industry reports indicated U.S. cattle herds shrank during the first quarter. Additional losses were experienced during April from short positions in lean hog futures as prices rose as an avian bird virus appeared in farms in the Midwest, sparking concern of potential pig herd infection. Losses in the soft commodities were recorded during March from long positions in coffee and sugar futures as prices fell after rainy weather in Brazil’s agricultural region boosted prospects for the nation’s farms. Additional losses in this sector were experienced during April from short positions in cotton futures as prices advanced as reports indicated farmers in Texas would cut cotton acreage to sow alternate crops. Within the metals markets, losses were incurred primarily during June from long positions in nickel futures as prices moved lower on reports of high global inventories and weakening industrial demand in China. The Partnership’s trading losses during the first six months of the year were offset by gains achieved within the energy markets during February from long positions in crude oil and its related products as prices rallied as cold weather blanketed much of the U.S. and OPEC released a bullish monthly oil-market report. Additional gains during February were recorded from long positions in heating oil futures as prices spiked as severe cold weather in the U.S. boosted demand from homes and businesses. Gains were also recorded within the grains markets during May from short positions in soybean futures after industry reports confirmed that the farms in the U.S. and Brazil are primed to produce record-level grains harvests in 2015.

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

The Partnership was paid interest on 100% of the average daily equity maintained in cash in the Partnership’s (or the Partnership’s allocable portion of a Fund’s) brokerage account during each month at the 4-week U.S. Treasury bill discount rate. Any interest earned on the Partnership’s account in excess of the amounts described above, if any, will be retained by MS&Co. and shared with the General Partner. All interest on U.S. Treasury bills purchased will be retained by the Partnership and the Funds. Interest income from investment in Funds for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $532 and $2,206, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014. The decrease in interest income is primarily due to lower average daily equity, as well as lower U.S. Treasury bill rates during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014. Interest earned by the Partnership will increase the net asset value of the Partnership. The amount of interest income earned by the Partnership during the reporting period depended on the average daily equity in the Partnership’s and the Funds’ accounts and upon interest rates over which neither the Partnership/Funds nor the commodity broker had control.

Ongoing selling agent fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value for each Class of Redeemable Units as of the end of each month and, therefore, are affected by trading performance, subscriptions and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be analyzed in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Ongoing selling agent fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $17,034 and $55,865, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014. The decrease in ongoing selling agent fees is due to lower adjusted net assets per Class during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014.

Management fees are calculated as a percentage of the net asset value of each Class of Redeemable Units allocated to the respective Advisor at the end of the month and, therefore, are affected by trading performance, subscriptions and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be analyzed in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Management fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $19,211 and $52,830, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014. The decrease in management fees is due to lower adjusted net assets per Class during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014, as well as a reduction in management fees paid to Aventis from an annual rate of 1.50% to an annual rate of 1.25% effective March 1, 2014.

General Partner fees are paid to the General Partner for administering the business and affairs of the Partnership including, among other things, (i) selecting, appointing and terminating the Partnership’s commodity trading advisors, (ii) allocating and reallocating the Partnership’s assets among the commodity trading advisors and (iii) monitoring the activities of the commodity trading advisors. These fees are calculated as a percentage of the net asset value for each Class of Redeemable Units as of the end of each month and are affected by trading performance, subscriptions and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be analyzed in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. General Partner fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 decreased by $9,081 and $28,963, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014. The decrease in General Partner fees is due to lower adjusted net assets per Class during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2014.

Incentive fees are based on the new trading profits generated by each Advisor as defined in the respective management agreements among the Partnership, the General Partner and each Advisor and are payable quarterly. There were no incentive fees earned for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively. To the extent an Advisor incurs a loss for the Partnership, the Advisor will not be paid an incentive fee until such Advisor recovers any net loss incurred by the Advisor and earns additional new trading profits for the Partnership.

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

As of June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, the Partnership’s assets were allocated among the Advisors in the following approximate percentages:


Advisor	June 30, 2015				March 31, 2015
Aventis	$	9,836,187	61	%	$	9,892,698	55	%
JE Moody	$	6,365,834	39	%	$	8,024,173	45	%

Item 3.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value at Risk tables represent a probabilistic assessment of the risk of loss in market risk sensitive instruments. The Advisors currently trade the Partnership’s assets indirectly in master fund managed accounts established in the name of the Funds, over which they have been granted limited authority to make trading decisions. The first two trading Value at Risk tables reflect the market sensitive instruments held by the Partnership indirectly, through its investments in the Funds. The remaining trading Value at Risk tables reflect the market sensitive instruments, held indirectly by each Fund, separately. There have been no material changes in the trading Value at Risk information previously disclosed in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category, through its investment in the Funds, as of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014. As of June 30, 2015, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $16,202,021.

June 30, 2015


Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization
Energy	$	430,800		2.66	%
Grains		58,672		0.36	%
Livestock		284,540		1.75	%
Metals		169,560		1.05	%
Softs		91,879		0.57	%

Total	$	1,035,451		6.39	%

As of December 31, 2014, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $18,035,434.

December 31, 2014


Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization
Energy	$	471,657		2.62	%
Grains		164,002		0.91	%
Livestock		317,901		1.76	%
Softs		89,946		0.50	%

Total	$	1,043,506		5.79	%

The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s investments in the Funds by market category as of June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, and the highest, lowest and average value during the three months ended June 30, 2015 and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2014. All open position trading risk exposures of the Partnership have been included in calculating the figures set forth below.

As of June 30, 2015, MB Master’s total capitalization was $216,732,298. The Partnership owned approximately 4.6% of MB Master. As of June 30, 2015, MB Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Aventis for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2015


						Three Months Ended June 30, 2015
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk	Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	4,494,895		2.07	%	$ 4,658,665	$	85,608	$	3,588,019
Grains		1,275,473		0.59	%	5,460,188		265,728		1,952,386
Livestock		10,005		0.01	%	1,044,137		10,005		399,189
Metals		3,686,092		1.70	%	4,770,355		119,892		2,223,273
Softs		1,521,903		0.70	%	2,642,826		1,521,903		2,209,178

Total	$	10,988,368		5.07	%

* Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2014, MB Master’s total capitalization was $228,148,871. The Partnership owned approximately 3.6% of MB Master. As of December 31, 2014, MB Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Aventis for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2014


	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2014
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	4,621,316		2.02	%	$	19,263,186	$	1,167,065	$	7,264,460
Grains		4,007,623		1.76	%		12,658,692		227,189		5,511,816
Livestock		2,120,485		0.93	%		2,385,459		214		519,782
Softs		1,518,859		0.67	%		3,591,096		1,297,496		2,081,253

Total	$	12,268,283		5.38	%

* Annual average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of June 30, 2015, JEM Master’s total capitalization was $19,385,490. The Partnership owned approximately 34.7% of JEM Master. As of June 30, 2015, JEM Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to JE Moody for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2015


						Three Months Ended June 30, 2015
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk	Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	645,634		3.33	%	$3,600,762	$	408,320		565,528
Livestock		818,675		4.22	%	884,015		358,380		656,737
Softs		63,030		0.33	%	200,695		29,700		114,198

Total	$	1,527,339		7.88	%

* Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2014, JEM Master’s total capitalization was $29,876,004. The Partnership owned approximately 29.4% of JEM Master. As of December 31, 2014, JEM Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to JE Moody for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2014


						Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2014
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk *
Energy	$	1,038,399		3.48	%	$	4,200,379	$	638,660	$	1,707,162
Grains		67,100		0.22	%		631,126		6,008		120,137
Livestock		821,645		2.75	%		1,089,315		24,750		336,630
Softs		119,955		0.40	%		267,465		4,290		65,936

Total	$	2,047,099		6.85	%

* Annual average of month-end Values at Risk.

Item 4.

Controls and Procedures

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

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

The General Partner’s President and CFO have evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of June 30, 2015 and, based on that evaluation, the General Partner’s President and CFO have concluded that at that date, the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

There were no changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting process during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2015 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

Legal Proceedings.

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

The following information supplements and amends the discussion set forth under Part I, Item 3 “Legal Proceedings” in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as updated by the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015.

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.” or the “Company”).

MS&Co. is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, a Delaware holding company. Morgan Stanley files periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010.

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

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

Regulatory and Governmental Matters.

The Company has received subpoenas and requests for information from certain federal and state regulatory and governmental entities, including among others various members of the RMBS Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, such as the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and several state Attorney General’s Offices, concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related matters such as residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”), collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), structured investment vehicles (“SIVs”) and credit default swaps backed by or referencing mortgage pass-through certificates. These matters, some of which are in advanced stages, include, but are not limited to, investigations related to the Company’s due diligence on the loans that it purchased for securitization, the Company’s communications with ratings agencies, the Company’s disclosures to investors, and the Company’s handling of servicing and foreclosure related issues.

On February 25, 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Civil Division (collectively, the “Civil Division”) to pay $2.6 billion to resolve certain claims that the Civil Division indicated it intended to bring against the Company. While the Company and the Civil Division have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, there can be no assurance that the Company and the Civil Division will agree on the final documentation of the settlement.

In May 2014, the California Attorney General’s Office (“CAAG”), which is one of the members of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it has made certain preliminary conclusions that the Company made knowing and material misrepresentations regarding RMBS and that it knowingly caused material misrepresentations to be made regarding the Cheyne SIV, which issued securities marketed to the California Public Employees Retirement System. The CAAG has further indicated that it believes the Company’s conduct violated California law and that it may seek treble damages, penalties and injunctive relief. The Company does not agree with these conclusions and has presented defenses to them to the CAAG.

On September 16, 2014, the Virginia Attorney General’s Office filed a civil lawsuit, styled Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Integra REC LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al., against the Company and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond related to RMBS. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and the other defendants knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions related to the loans backing RMBS purchased by the Virginia Retirement System (“VRS”). The complaint alleges VRS suffered total losses of approximately $384 million on these securities, but does not specify the amount of alleged losses attributable to RMBS sponsored or underwritten by the Company. The complaint asserts claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as well as common law claims of actual and constructive fraud, and seeks, among other things, treble damages and civil penalties. On January 20, 2015, the defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint and a plea in bar seeking dismissal of the complaint.

In October 2014, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office (“IL AG”) sent a letter to the Company alleging that the Company knowingly made misrepresentations related to RMBS purchased by certain pension funds affiliated with the State of Illinois and demanding that the Company pay the IL AG approximately $88 million. The Company does not agree with these allegations and has presented defenses to them to the IL AG.

On January 13, 2015, the New York Attorney General’s Office (“NYAG”), which is also a member of the RMBS Working Group, indicated that it intends to file a lawsuit related to approximately 30 subprime securitizations sponsored by the Company. NYAG indicated that the lawsuit would allege that the Company misrepresented or omitted material information related to the due diligence, underwriting and valuation of the loans in the securitizations and the properties securing them and indicated that its lawsuit would be brought under the Martin Act. The Company does not agree with NYAG’s allegations and has presented defenses to them to NYAG.

On June 5, 2012, the Company 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, the Company 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 the Company 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, the Company 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. The Company entered into corresponding and related settlements with the CME and CBOT in which the CME found that the Company violated CME Rules 432.Q and 538 and fined the Company $750,000 and CBOT found that the Company violated CBOT Rules 432.Q and 538 and fined the Company $1,000,000.

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

On April 21, 2015, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) and the CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC (“CFE”) filed statements of charges against the Company in connection with trading by one of the Company’s former traders of EEM options contracts that allegedly disrupted the final settlement price of the November 2012 VXEM futures. CBOE alleged that the Company violated CBOE Rules 4.1, 4.2 and 4.7, Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. CFE alleged that the Company violated CFE Rules 608, 609 and 620. Both matters are ongoing.

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

Other Litigation

On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against the Company and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. 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 the Company was approximately $233 million. The complaint raises claims under the Washington State Securities Act and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On October 18, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By orders dated June 23, 2011 and July 18, 2011, the court denied defendants’ omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint and on August 15, 2011, the court denied the Company’s individual motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 7, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. At June 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $49 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $49 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California. These actions are styled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al., respectively. Amended complaints 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 the Company in these cases was approximately $704 million and $276 million, respectively. The complaints raise claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiff’s federal securities law claims 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. On January 26, 2015, as a result of a settlement with certain other defendants, the plaintiff requested and the court subsequently entered a dismissal with prejudice of certain of the plaintiff’s claims, including all remaining claims against the Company in the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. action. On February 18, 2015, the court entered an order setting a number of claims for trial throughout 2016. Claims against the Company have not yet been set for trial. At June 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in these cases was approximately $63 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $1 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss for this action up to the difference between the $63 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

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

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. A corrected amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2011. The corrected amended 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 and asserts claims under Illinois law. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company at issue in the action was approximately $203 million. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint on May 27, 2011, which was denied on September 19, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. After that dismissal, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $78 million. At June 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $53 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $53 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, styled The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint 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 the Company is approximately $1.073 billion. The amended complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, equitable fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the New Jersey RICO statute, and includes a claim for treble damages. On March 15, 2013, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 2, 2015, the court denied defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. At June 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this

action was approximately $590 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $590 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 29, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company 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 were 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 has voluntarily dismissed its claims against the Company with respect to two of the securitizations at issue, such that the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company is approximately $358 million. At June 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $57 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $57 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiff was approximately $694 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company 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 the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 4, 2014, claims regarding two certificates were dismissed by stipulation. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $644 million. On September 12, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss. On January 12, 2015, the Company filed an amended answer to the complaint. At June 25, 2014, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $283 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $80 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between

the $283 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses.

On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to the plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $417 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company 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, rescissory and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 13, 2013. On January 22, 2014 the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under Texas Securities Act and the Illinois Securities Law of 1953. On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On December 15, 2014, defendants answered the amended complaint. At June 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $200 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of $28 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $200 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company 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.

Settled Civil Litigation

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

On July 9, 2010 and February 11, 2011, Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. filed two separate complaints against the Company and/or its affiliates and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, both styled Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. The complaints asserted claims on behalf of certain clients of plaintiff’s affiliates and allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates

allegedly issued by the Company and/or its affiliates or sold to plaintiff’s affiliates’ clients by the Company and/or its affiliates in the two matters was approximately $263 million. On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation. On February 20, 2014, the court dismissed the action.

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

On July 5, 2011, Allstate Insurance Company and certain of its affiliated entities filed a complaint against the Company 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 the defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to the plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued and/or sold to the plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $104 million. The complaint raised common law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation and seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or recessionary damages associated with the plaintiffs’ purchases of such certificates. On March 15, 2013, the court denied in substantial part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which order the Company appealed on April 11, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint. On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, styled Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., et al. 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 the Company was approximately $153 million. On June 8, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

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

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

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

On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against the Company 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 the Company made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $67 million and $35 million, respectively. On July 2, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

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

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

Item 1A.

Risk Factors.

There have been no material changes to the risk factors set forth under Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 and under Part II, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015.

Item 2.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

For the three months ended June 30, 2015, there were subscriptions for 111.2980 Class A Redeemable Units totaling $150,000. The Redeemable Units were issued in reliance upon applicable exemptions from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 506 of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. The Redeemable Units were purchased by accredited investors as defined in Regulation D. In determining the applicability of the exemption, the General Partner relied on the fact that the Redeemable Units were purchased by accredited investors in a private offering.

Proceeds from the sale of limited partner Redeemable Units are used in the trading of commodity interests including futures, option and forward contracts.

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


Period	Class A (a) Total Number of Shares (or Redeemable Units) Purchased*		Class A (b) Average Price Paid per Share (or Redeemable Unit)**		(c) Total Number of Shares (or Redeemable Units) Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs		(d) Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares (or Redeemable Units) that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
April 1, 2015 - April 30, 2015		234.6120	$	1,323.53		N/A		N/A
May 1, 2015 - May 31, 2015		222.1350	$	1,299.12		N/A		N/A
June 1, 2015 - June 30, 2015		254.1870	$	1,276.20		N/A		N/A
		710.9340	$	1,298.98

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

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

Item 3.

Defaults Upon Senior Securities — None.

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures — Not Applicable.

Item 5.

Other Information — None.

Item 6.

Exhibits

Exhibit



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d)		Certificate of Amendment of the Application for Authority as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on June 30, 2011 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(d) to the General Form for Registration of Securities on Form 10 filed on June 29, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference)

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

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

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

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

10.1(a)		Second Amended and Restated Management Agreement among the Partnership, Ceres Managed Futures LLC and J E Moody & Company LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.1(a) to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2015, and incorporated herein by reference)

(b)		Letter from the General Partner to JE Moody & Company LLC extending the Management Agreement from June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2015 (filed as Exhibit 10.1(b) to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2015, and incorporated herein by reference)

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

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

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



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

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

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

(d)		Letter from the General Partner to Aventis Asset Management, LLC (formerly Misfit Financial Group, LLC) extending the Management Agreement from June 30, 2014 to June 30, 2015 (filed as Exhibit 10.3(d) to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2015, and incorporated herein by reference)

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

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

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

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

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

10.8		Commodity Futures Customer Agreement between the Partnership and MS&Co., effective October 29, 2013 (filed as Exhibit 10.6 to the annual report on Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2015, and incorporated herein by reference)

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

10.10		Master Services Agreement by and among the Partnership, the General Partner and SS&C Technologies, Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the current report on Form 8-K filed on August 6, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference)

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

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

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

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

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document.

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.



101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.

101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.

101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

SIGNATURES

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

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P.


By:		Ceres Managed Futures LLC
		(General Partner)

By:		/s/ Patrick T. Egan
		Patrick T. Egan President & Director

Date:		August 12, 2015


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

Date:		August 12, 2015

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P. - FORM 10-Q - August 12, 2015

Attached files

COMMODITY ADVISORS FUND L.P. Reports