Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select (DWSF) 10-Q2020 Q1 Quarterly report

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 March 31, 2020

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 Number000-19511

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

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

YesX   No   

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).

YesX   No   

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.__

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes       NoX

As of April 30, 2020, 1,190,207.378 Limited Partnership Units were outstanding.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.Financial Statements.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Statements of Financial Condition

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

1

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Condensed Schedule of Investments

March 31, 2020

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

2

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Condensed Schedule of Investments

December 31, 2019

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

3

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Statements of Income and Expenses

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

4

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital

For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2020 and 2019

(Unaudited)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

5

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P. (the “Partnership”) is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1991 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products (collectively, “Futures Interests”) (refer to Note 4, “Financial Instruments”). The General Partner (as defined below) may also determine to invest up to all of the Partnership’s assets in United States (“U.S.”) Treasury bills and/or money market mutual funds, including money market mutual funds managed by Morgan Stanley or its affiliates. The Partnership commenced trading operations on August 1, 1991.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, acts as the general partner (“Ceres” or the “General Partner”) and commodity pool operator of the Partnership. Ceres is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. (“MSD Holdings”). MSD 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.

As of March 31, 2020, all trading decisions were made for the Partnership by EMC Capital Management, Inc. (“EMC”) and Graham Capital Management, L.P. (“Graham”) (each, a “Trading Advisor” and, collectively, the “Trading Advisors”).

During the reporting periods ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, the Partnership’s commodity broker was Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“MS&Co.”), a registered futures commission merchant. MS&Co. also acts as the counterparty on all trading of foreign currency forward contracts. MS&Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.

The General Partner has 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 furnishes certain administrative, accounting, regulatory reporting, tax and other services as agreed from time to time. In addition, the Administrator maintains certain books and records of the Partnership. The General Partner pays or reimburses the Partnership, from the General Partner fee it receives from the Partnership, the ordinary administrative expenses of the Partnership including the expenses related to the engagement of the Administrator.

The 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 presentation of the Partnership’s financial condition at March 31, 2020 and the results of its operations and changes in partners’ capital for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019. 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 Form10-K (the “Form10-K”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for the year ended December 31, 2019. The December 31, 2019 information has been derived from the audited financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.

6

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

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.

Use of Estimates. 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, and those differences could be material.

Profit Allocation.The General Partner and each limited partner of the Partnership 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 is liable for obligations of the Partnership in excess of its capital contributions and profits, if any, net of distributions or redemptions and losses, if any.

Statement of Cash Flows. The Partnership has not provided a Statement of Cash Flows, as permitted by Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 230,“Statement of Cash Flows.” The Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital is included herein, and as of and for the periods ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, the Partnership carried no debt and all the Partnership’s investments were carried at fair value and classified as Level 1 and Level 2 measurements.

Partnership’s Investments. All Futures Interests of the Partnership, including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments, are held for trading purposes. The Futures Interests are recorded on trade date and open contracts are recorded at fair value (as described in Note 6, “Fair Value Measurements”) at the measurement date. Investments in Futures 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 and are determined using thefirst-in,first-out method. Unrealized gains or losses on open contracts are included as a component of equity in trading account in the Statements of Financial Condition. Net realized gains or losses and net change in unrealized gains or losses are included in the Statements of Income and Expenses. The Partnership does not isolate the portion of the results of operations arising from the effect of changes in foreign exchange rates on investments from fluctuations due to changes in market prices of investments held. Such fluctuations are included in total trading results in the Statements of Income and Expenses.

Partnership’s Cash. The Partnership’s restricted cash is equal to the cash portion of assets on deposit to meet margin requirements, as determined by the exchange or counterparty, and required by MS&Co. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the amount of cash held for margin requirements was $2,449,755 and $7,560,090, respectively. Restricted and unrestricted cash includes cash denominated in foreign currencies of $56,640 (cost of $58,858) and $154,998 (cost of $151,583) as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.

Investment Company Status. The Partnership has been deemed to be an investment company since inception. Accordingly, the Partnership follows the investment company accounting and reporting guidance of Accounting Standards Update2013-08“FinancialServices—Investment Companies (Topic 946): Amendments to the Scope, Measurement and Disclosure Requirements” 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 recorded as each partner is individually liable for the taxes, if any, on its share of the Partnership’s income and expenses. The Partnership follows the guidance of ASC 740, “Income Taxes,” which prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in the course of preparing the Partnership’s tax returns to determine whether the tax positions are“more-likely-than-not” of being sustained “when challenged” or “when examined” by the applicable tax authority. Tax positions determined not to meet themore-likely-than-not threshold would be recorded as a tax benefit or liability in the Partnership’s Statements of Financial Condition for the current year. If a tax position does not meet the minimum statutory threshold to avoid the incurring of penalties, an expense for the amount of the statutory penalty and interest, if applicable, shall be recognized in the Statements of Income and Expenses in the period in which the position is claimed or expected to be claimed. The General Partner has concluded that there are no significant uncertain tax positions that would require recognition in the financial statements. The Partnership files U.S. federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The 2016 through 2019 tax years remain subject to examination by U.S. federal and most state tax authorities.

7

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Net Income (Loss) per Unit.Net income (loss) per unit of limited partnership interest (“Unit(s)”) is calculated in accordance with ASC 946,“Financial Services – Investment Companies.” See Note 3, “Financial Highlights.”

There have been no material changes with respect to the Partnership’s critical accounting policies as reported in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.

Financial highlights for the limited partner class as a whole for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 were as follows:

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 partners’ capital.

8

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

The Partnership trades Futures Interests. Futures and forwards represent contracts for delayed delivery of an instrument at a specified date and price. Futures and forwards are open commitments until the settlement date, at which time they are realized. They are valued at fair value, generally on a daily basis, and the unrealized gains and losses on open contracts (the difference between contract trade price and market price) are reported in the Statements of Financial Condition as a net unrealized gain or loss on open futures or forward contracts. The resulting net change in unrealized gains and losses is reflected in the “Net change in unrealized gains (losses) on open contracts” in the Statements of Income and Expenses. The Partnership’s contracts are accounted for on a trade-date basis. Gains or losses are realized when contracts are liquidated and are determined using thefirst-in,first-out method. Risk arises from changes in the value of these contracts and the potential inability of counterparties to perform under the terms of the contracts. There are numerous factors which may significantly influence the fair value of these contracts, including interest rate volatility.

The fair value of an exchange-traded contract is based on the settlement price quoted by the exchange on the day with respect to which fair value is being determined. If an exchange-traded contract could not have been liquidated on such day due to the operation of daily limits or other rules of the exchange, the settlement price will be equal to the settlement price on the first subsequent day on which the contract could be liquidated.

In general, the risks associated withnon-exchange-traded contracts are greater than those associated with exchange-traded contracts because of the greater risk of default by the counterparty to anon-exchange-traded contract. The Partnership has credit risk associated with counterparty nonperformance. As of the date of the financial statements, the credit risk associated with the instruments in which the Partnership trades is limited to the unrealized gain amounts reflected in the Statements of Financial Condition. The net unrealized gains (losses) on open contracts are further disclosed gross by type of contract and corresponding fair value level in Note 6, “Fair Value Measurements.”

The Partnership also has credit risk because MS&Co. acts as the commodity futures broker, or the counterparty, with respect to most of the Partnership’s assets. Exchange-traded futures and exchange-traded forward contracts are fair valued on a daily basis, with variations in value settled on a daily basis. With respect to the Partnership’snon-exchange-traded forward currency contracts, there are no daily settlements of variation in value, nor is there any requirement that an amount equal to the net unrealized gains (losses) on such contracts be segregated. However, the Partnership is required to meet margin requirements with the counterparty, which is accomplished by daily maintenance of the cash balance in custody accounts and U.S. Treasury bills held at MS&Co., for the benefit of MS&Co. With respect to thosenon-exchange-traded forward currency contracts, the Partnership is at risk to the ability of MS&Co., the sole counterparty on all such contracts, to perform. The Partnership has a netting agreement with MS&Co. The primary terms are based on industry standard master netting agreements. These agreements, which seek to reduce both the Partnership’s and MS&Co.’s exposure onnon-exchange-traded forward currency contracts, including options on such contracts, should materially decrease the Partnership’s credit risk in the event of MS&Co.’s bankruptcy or insolvency.

The General Partner monitors and attempts to mitigate the Partnership’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 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 positions by sector, margin requirements, gain and loss transactions and collateral positions.

The futures and forwards traded by the Partnership, along with the U.S. Treasury bills held by the Partnership, involve varying degrees of related market risk. Market risk is often dependent upon changes in the level or volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, and prices of financial instruments and commodities, factors that result in frequent changes in the fair value of the Partnership’s open positions, and consequently in its earnings, whether realized or unrealized, and cash flow.

Gains and losses on open positions of exchange-traded futures and exchange-traded forward contracts are settled daily through variation margin. Gains and losses onnon-exchange-traded forward currency contracts are settled upon termination of the contract.

9

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

In the ordinary course of business, the Partnership enters into contracts and agreements that contain various representations and warranties and which provide general indemnifications. The Partnership’s maximum exposure under these arrangements cannot be determined, as this could include future claims that have not yet been made against the Partnership. The Partnership considers the risk of any future obligation relating to these indemnifications to be remote.

The Partnership’s objective is to profit from speculative trading in Futures Interests. Therefore, each Trading Advisor for the Partnership will take speculative positions in Futures Interests where it feels the best profit opportunities exist for its trading strategies. As such, the average number of contracts outstanding in absolute quantities (the total of the open long and open short positions) has been presented as a part of the volume disclosure, as position direction is not an indicative factor in such volume disclosures.

All of the Futures Interests owned by the Partnership are held for trading purposes. The monthly average number of futures contracts traded during the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 were 2,071 and 2,726, respectively. The monthly average number of metal forward contracts traded during the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 were 397 and 386, respectively. The monthly average notional value of currency forward contracts traded during the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 were $60,340,987 and $74,118,889, respectively.

The following tables summarize the gross and net amounts recognized relating to the assets and liabilities of the Partnership’s derivatives and their offsetting subject to master netting arrangements or similar agreements as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.

10

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

11

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

The following tables indicate the gross fair values of derivative instruments of futures and forward contracts as separate assets and liabilities as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.

12

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

13

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

The following table indicates the Partnership’s trading gains and losses, by market sector, on derivative instruments for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019.

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

The fair value of exchange-traded futures, forward and option 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. The fair value of foreign currency forward contracts is extrapolated on a forward basis from the spot prices quoted as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.) on the last business day of the reporting period from various exchanges. The fair value ofnon-exchange-traded foreign currency option contracts is calculated by applying an industry standard model application for options valuation of foreign currency options, using as input the spot prices, interest rates and option implied volatilities quoted as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.) on the last business day of the reporting period. U.S. Treasury bills are valued at the last available bid price received from independent pricing services as of the close of the last business day of the reporting period.

The Partnership considers prices for commodity futures, swap and option contracts to be based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities (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 pricing services that derive fair values for those assets and liabilities from observable inputs (Level 2). As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 and for the periods ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, the Partnership 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).

14

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Select L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

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

15

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

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Partnership does not have, nor does it expect to have, any capital assets. The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services. Its assets are (i) its equity in trading account, consisting of unrestricted and restricted cash, net unrealized appreciation on open futures contracts, net unrealized appreciation on open forward contracts and investment in U.S. Treasury bills at fair value, if applicable and (ii) interest receivable. Because of the low margin deposits normally required in commodity futures trading, relatively small price movements may result in substantial losses to the Partnership. While substantial losses could lead to a material decrease in liquidity, no such illiquidity occurred in the first quarter of 2020.

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

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

Other than the risks inherent in Futures Interests trading and U.S. Treasury bills and money market mutual fund securities, the Partnership knows of no trends, demands, commitments, events or uncertainties at the present time that are reasonably likely to result in the Partnership’s liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way.

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

For the three months ended March 31, 2020, the Partnership capital decreased 5.3% from $29,568,251 to $27,988,212. This decrease was attributable to redemptions of 44,774.770 limited partner Units totaling $1,008,423, coupled with a net loss of $571,616. Future redemptions can impact the amount of funds available for investment in subsequent periods.

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

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations

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

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 periods. 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, “Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies,” of the Financial Statements.

The Partnership records all investments at fair value in its financial statements, with changes in fair value reported as a component of net realized gains (losses) and net change in unrealized gains (losses) in the Statements of Income and Expenses. The General Partner estimates that, at any given time, approximately 12.9% to 29.4% of the Partnership’s contracts are tradedover-the-counter.

16

Results of Operations

General: The Partnership’s results depend on the Trading Advisors and the ability of each Trading Advisor’s trading program to take advantage of price movements in the Futures Interests markets.

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

EMC currently trades its Classic Program for the Partnership. EMC’s investment strategies are technical rather than fundamental in nature. In other words, they are developed from analysis of patterns of actual monthly, weekly, and daily price movements and are not based on analysis of fundamental supply and demand factors, general economic factors, or anticipated world events. EMC relies on historical analysis of these price patterns to interpret current market behavior and to evaluate technical indicators for trade initiations and liquidations. EMC’s investment strategies used in its program are trend-following. This means that initiation and liquidation of positions in a particular market are generally in the direction of the price trend in that market, although at times counter-trend elements also may be employed. EMC employs an investment strategy which utilizes a blend of systems (or, stated another way, a number of systems simultaneously). The strategies are diversified in that its program follows a number of Futures Interests and often invests in more than ten different interests at one time.

The General Partner is not aware of any material changes to the trading programs discussed above for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2020.

The following chart sets forth the percentage and the amount of the Partnership’s net assets allocated to each Trading Advisor for the periods ended March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively.

The following presents a summary of the Partnership’s operations for the three months ended March 31, 2020, and a general discussion of its trading activities during the period. It is important to note, however, that the Trading Advisors trade in various markets at different times and that prior activity in a particular market does not mean that such market will be actively traded by the Trading Advisors or will be profitable in the future. Consequently, the results of operations of the Partnership are difficult to discuss other than in the context of the Trading Advisors’ trading activities on behalf of the Partnership during the period in question. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The Partnership’s results of operations set forth in the financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which require the use of certain accounting policies that affect the amounts reported in these financial statements, including the following: the contracts the Partnership trades are accounted for on a trade-date basis and marked to market on a daily basis. The difference between their original contract value and market value is recorded in the Statements of Income and Expenses as “Net change in unrealized gains (losses) on open contracts,” and recorded as “Net realized gains (losses) on closed contracts” when open positions are closed out. The sum of these amounts constitutes the Partnership’s trading results. The market value of a futures contract is the settlement price on the exchange on which that futures contract is traded on a particular day. The value of a foreign currency forward contract is based on the spot rate as of approximately 3:00 P.M. (E.T.), the close of the business day. Interest income, as well as management fees, incentive fees, General Partner fees and ongoing placement agent fees of the Partnership are recorded on an accrual basis, as applicable.

17

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

During the Partnership’s first quarter of 2020, the net asset value per Unit decreased 1.9% from $23.36 to $22.92 as compared to an increase of 1.9% in the first quarter of 2019. The Partnership experienced a net trading loss before fees and expenses in the first quarter of 2020 of $263,196. G were primarily attributable to the Partnership’s trading of Futures Interests in equity sector, and were partially offset by gains in commodity, currencies and interest rates sectors. The Partnership experienced a net trading gain before fees and expenses in the first quarter of 2019 of $810,803. Gains were primarily attributable to the Partnership’s trading of Futures Interests in equity and interest rate sectors and were partially offset by losses in commodity and currencies sectors.

During the first quarter, the most notable losses were incurred during February and March from long positions in European, U.S., and Asian equity index futures as equity prices fell at historic rates due to investor panic amid theCOVID-19 coronavirus. The Partnership’s overall trading losses for the quarter were partially offset by trading gains experienced during January, February, and March from long positions in U.S. fixed income futures as U.S. bond prices rallied on safe-haven demand. Additional gains were recorded from positions in Canadian and British fixed income. Within the metals sector, the most notable gains were experienced during January and March from short positions in copper futures as prices declined on concerns that the worsening coronavirus outbreak would pare Chinese demand for raw materials. Within the energy sector, gains were experienced primarily during March from short positions in crude oil and refined oil products as plummeting global demand caused prices to crater. Within the agricultural markets, gains were experienced primarily during January from short positions in soybean futures as prices fell. Additional gains in the agricultural sector were experienced during March from positions in cotton and cattle futures. Within the currency sector, gains were experienced throughout the quarter from short positions in the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar as the value of these commodity-linked currencies declined.

Commodity markets are highly volatile. Broad price fluctuations and rapid inflation increase not only the risks involved in commodity trading, but also the possibility of profit. The profitability of the Partnership depends on the existence of major price trends and the ability of the Trading Advisors to correctly identify those price trends. Price trends are influenced by, among other things, changing supply and demand relationships, weather, public health epidemics, 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 Trading Advisors are able to identify them, the Partnership expect to increase capital through operations.

18

The Partnership receives monthly interest on 100% of its average daily equity maintained in cash in the Partnership’s account during each month at a rate equal to 80% of the monthly average of the4-week U.S Treasury bill discount rate. For the avoidance of doubt, the Partnership will not receive interest on amounts in the futures brokerage account that are committed to margin. Any interest earned on the Partnership’s cash account in excess of the amounts described above, if any, will be retained by MS&Co. and/or shared with the General Partner. All interest earned on U.S. Treasury bills and money market mutual fund securities will be retained by the Partnership, as applicable. Interest income for the three months ended March 31, 2020 decreased by $69,922 as compared to the corresponding period in 2019. The decrease in interest income was primarily due to lower average daily equity and lower interest rates during the three months ended March 31, 2020 as compared to the corresponding period in 2019. Interest earned by the Partnership will increase the net asset value of the Partnership. The amount of interest income earned by the Partnership depends on (1) the average daily equity maintained in cash in the Partnership’s accounts, (2) the amount of U.S. Treasury bills and/or money market mutual fund securities held by the Partnership and (3) interest rates over which none of the Partnership or MS&Co. has control.

Ongoing placement agent fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value on the first day of each month and are affected by trading performance and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be compared in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Ongoing placement agent fees for the three months ended March 31, 2020 decreased by $10,664, as compared to the corresponding period in 2019. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in average net assets during the three months ended March 31, 2020 as compared to the corresponding period in 2019.

General Partner fees are paid to the General Partner for administering the business and affairs of the Partnership. General Partner fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value as of the beginning of each month and are affected by trading performance and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be compared in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. General Partner fees for the three months ended March 31, 2020 decreased by $10,664, as compared to the corresponding period in 2019. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in average net assets during the three months ended March 31, 2020 as compared to the corresponding period in 2019.

Management fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value as of the beginning of each month and are affected by trading performance and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be compared in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Management fees for the three months ended March 31, 2020 decreased by $13,488, as compared to the corresponding period in 2019. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in average net assets during the three months ended March 31, 2020 as compared to the corresponding period in 2019.

Incentive fees are based on the new trading profits generated by each Trading Advisor at the end of the month or year, as applicable, as defined in the respective management agreements between the Partnership, the General Partner and each Trading Advisor. Trading performance for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019 did not result in incentive fees. To the extent a Trading Advisor incurs a loss for the Partnership, the Trading Advisor will not be paid incentive fees until such Trading Advisor recovers any net loss incurred by the Trading Advisor and earns additional new trading profits for the Partnership.

In allocating the assets of the Partnership among the Trading Advisors, the General Partner considers, among other factors, each Trading Advisor’s past performance, trading style, volatility of markets traded and fee requirements. The General Partner may modify or terminate the allocation of assets among the Trading Advisors and may allocate assets to additional advisors at any time.

For additional disclosures about operational and financial risk related toCOVID-19 outbreak, refer to Part II, Item 5. “Other Information.” in the Form10-Q.

19

Item 3.    Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

The Partnership is a commodity pool engaged primarily in speculative trading of futures, forwards and options. The market sensitive instruments held by the Partnership are acquired for speculative trading purposes, and all or substantially all of the Partnership’s 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 Partnership’s 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 Partnership’s open positions and, consequently, in its earnings and cash balances. The Partnership’s 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 among the Partnership’s open contracts and the liquidity of the markets in which it trades.

The Partnership rapidly acquires and liquidates 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 Partnership’s past performance is not necessarily indicative of its future results.

Quantifying the Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk

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

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

The Partnership’s risk exposure in the market sectors traded by the Trading Advisors is estimated below in terms of Value at Risk. Please note that the Value at Risk model is used to numerically quantify market risk for historic reporting purposes only and is not utilized by either Ceres or the Trading Advisors in their daily risk management activities.

“Value at Risk” is a measure of the maximum amount which the Partnership could reasonably be expected to lose in a given market sector. However, the inherent uncertainty of the Partnership’s speculative trading and the recurrence in the markets traded by the Partnership of market movements far exceeding expectations could result in actual trading ornon-trading losses far beyond the indicated Value at Risk or the Partnership’s 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 Partnership’s losses in any market sector will be limited to Value at Risk or by the Partnership’s attempts to manage its market risk.

Exchange margin requirements have been used by the Partnership as the measure of its 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 in95%-99% of anyone-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-termone-day price fluctuation.

Value at Risk tables represent a probabilistic assessment of the risk of loss in market risk sensitive instruments. The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, and the highest, lowest and average values during the three months ended March 31, 2020 and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2019. All open position trading risk exposures of the Partnership have been included in calculating the figures set forth below. There has been no material change in the trading Value at Risk,non-trading risk and risk management information previously disclosed in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.

20

As of March 31, 2020, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $27,988,212.

March 31, 2020

*Average of daily Value at Risk.

As of December 31, 2019, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $29,568,251.

December 31, 2019

* Annual average of daily Value at Risk.

21

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 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 Rules13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of March 31, 2020 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’sinternal 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:

There were no changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting process during the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2020 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

22

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.    Legal Proceedings.

This section describes the major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which MS&Co. or its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of their property is subject. There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Partnership or the General Partner.

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.”).

MS&Co. is a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, a Delaware holding company. Morgan Stanley files periodic reports with the SEC as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) which include current descriptions of material litigation and material proceedings and investigations, if any, by governmental and/or regulatory agencies or self-regulatory organizations concerning Morgan Stanley and its subsidiaries, including MS&Co. As a consolidated subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, MS&Co. does not file its own periodic reports with the SEC that contain descriptions of material litigation, proceedings and investigations. As a result, we refer you to the “Legal Proceedings” section of Morgan Stanley’s SEC10-K filings for 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013. In addition, MS&Co. annually prepares an Audited, Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition (“Audited Financial Statement”) that is publicly available on Morgan Stanley’s website atwww.morganstanley.com. We refer you to the Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies – Legal section of MS&Co.’s 2019 Audited Financial Statement.

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.

During the preceding five years, the following administrative, civil, or criminal actions pending, on appeal or concluded against MS&Co. or any of its principals are material within the meaning of CFTC Rule 4.24(l)(2) or 4.34(k)(2):

Regulatory and Governmental Matters.

On February 25, 2015, MS&Co. 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 MS&Co. That settlement was finalized on February 10, 2016.

23

In October 2014, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office (“ILAG”) sent a letter to MS&Co. alleging that MS&Co. knowingly made misrepresentations related to RMBS purchased by certain pension funds affiliated with the State of Illinois and demanding that MS&Co. pay ILAG approximately $88 million. MS&Co. and ILAG reached an agreement to resolve the matter on February 10, 2016.

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 intended to file a lawsuit related to approximately 30 subprime securitizations sponsored by MS&Co. NYAG indicated that the lawsuit would allege that MS&Co. 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. MS&Co. and NYAG reached an agreement to resolve the matter on February 10, 2016.

On July 23, 2014, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 MS&Co. in connection with trading by one of MS&Co.’s former traders of EEM options contracts that allegedly disrupted the final settlement price of the November 2012 VXEM futures. CBOE alleged that MS&Co. violated CBOE Rules 4.1, 4.2 and 4.7, Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule10b-5 thereunder. CFE alleged that MS&Co. violated CFE Rules 608, 609 and 620. The matters were resolved on June 28, 2016 without any findings of fraud.

On June 18, 2015, MS&Co. entered into a settlement with the SEC and paid a fine of $500,000 as part of the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Corporation Initiative to resolve allegations that MS&Co. 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 Rule15c2-12 under the Exchange Act in connection with offerings in which MS&Co. acted as senior or sole underwriter.

On August 6, 2015, MS&Co. consented to and became the subject of an order by the CFTC to resolve allegations that MS&Co. violated CFTC Regulation 22.9(a) by failing to hold sufficient U.S. Dollars in cleared swap segregated accounts in the United States to meet all U.S. Dollar obligations to cleared swaps customers. Specifically, the CFTC found that while MS&Co. at all times held sufficient funds in segregation to cover its obligations to its customers, on certain days during 2013 and 2014, it held currencies, such as euros, instead of US dollars, to meet its U.S. dollar obligations. In addition, the CFTC found that MS&Co. violated CFTC Regulation 166.3 by failing to have in place adequate procedures to ensure that it complied with CFTC Regulation 22.9(a). Without admitting or denying the findings or conclusions and without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, MS&Co. accepted and consented to the entry of findings, the imposition of a cease and desist order, a civil monetary penalty of $300,000, and undertakings related to public statements, cooperation, and payment of the monetary penalty.

On December 20, 2016, MS&Co. consented to and became the subject of an order by the SEC in connection with allegations that MS&Co. willfully violated Sections 15(c)(3) and

24

17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules15c3-3(e),17a-5(a), and17a-5(d) thereunder, by inaccurately calculating its Reserve Account requirement under Rule15c3-3 by including margin loans to an affiliate in its calculations, which resulted in making inaccurate records and submitting inaccurate reports to the SEC. Without admitting or denying the underlying allegations and without adjudication of any issue of law or fact, MS&Co. consented to a cease and desist order, a censure, and a civil monetary penalty of $7,500,000.

On September 28, 2017, the CFTC issued an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against MS&Co. regarding violations of CFTC Rule 166.3 by failing to diligently supervise the reconciliation of exchange and clearing fees with the amounts it ultimately charged customers for certain transactions on multiple exchanges. The order and settlement required MS&Co. to pay a $500,000 penalty and cease and desist from violating CFTC Rule 166.3.

On November 2, 2017, the CFTC issued an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against MS&Co. fornon-compliance with applicable rules governing Part 17 Large Trader reports to the CFTC. The order requires MS&Co. to pay a $350,000 penalty and cease and desist from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Civil Litigation

On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank (“CDIB”) filed a complaint against MS&Co., styledChinaDevelopment 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 CDS referencing the super senior portion of the STACK2006-1 CDO. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment and alleges that the MS&Co. misrepresented the risks of the STACK2006-1 CDO to CDIB, and that MS&Co, knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the CDS with CDIB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CDIB alleges it has already lost under the CDS, 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 MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 21, 2018, the court denied MS&Co.’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part MS&Co.’s motion for sanctions relating to the spoliation of evidence. On January 24, 2019, CDIB filed a notice of appeal from the court’s December 21, 2018 order, and on January 25, 2019, MS&Co. filed a notice of appeal from the same order. On March 7, 2019, the court denied the relief that CDIB sought in a motion to clarify and resettle the portion of the court’s December 21, 2018 order granting spoliation sanctions. On January 24, 2019, CDIB filed a notice of appeal from the court’s December 21, 2018 order, and on January 25, 2019, MS&Co filed a notice of appeal from the same order. On March 7, 2019, the court denied the relief that CDIB sought in a motion to clarify and resettle the portion of the court’s December 21, 2018 order granting spoliation sanctions. On December 5, 2019, the Appellate Division, First Department (“First Department”) heard the parties’ cross-appeals. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $240 million pluspre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

25

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, styledFederal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. A corrected amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2011, which 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 MS&Co. 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. On January 18, 2017, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to an additional securitization at issue. After those dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $65 million. At December 25, 2019, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $35 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $35 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., pluspre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On May 17, 2013, plaintiff inIKB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $133 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against MS&Co. for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 29, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $116 million. On August 11, 2016, the First Department affirmed the trial court’s decision denying in part MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss the complaint. At December 25, 2019, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $22 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of $58 million. Based on currently available information, MS&Co. believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $22 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against MS&Co., or upon sale, pluspre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. MS&Co. may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styledIowa Public Employees’ Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based

26

platforms for securities lending. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action complaint.

Beginning on March 25, 2019, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a series of putative class action complaints filed in the Southern District of New York, the first of which was styledAlaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al. Each complaint alleged a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Association; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Each complaint raises a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and sought, among other things, injunctive relief and treble compensatory damages. On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, now styledIn re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation. The purported class period in the consolidated amended complaint is now from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016. On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On August 29, 2019, the court in In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation denied MS&Co.’s motion to dismiss. The case is set for trial in May 2020.

Settled Civil Litigation

On December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle filed a complaint against MS&Co. and another defendant in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, styledFederal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. The amended complaint, filed on September 28, 2010, alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $233 million. The complaint raised claims under the Washington State Securities Act and sought, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On January 23, 2017, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California styledFederal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al. An amended complaint, filed on June 10, 2010, alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $276 million. The complaint raises claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and sought, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On December 21, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On October 25, 2010, MS&Co., certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”), were named as defendants in a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), styledGe Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. On January 31, 2014, the plaintiffs in the action, which related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, 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

27

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 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, styledWestern 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 alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of the certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs by MS&Co. was approximately $153 million. On June 8, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, styledThe Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. was approximately $1.073 billion. The amended complaint raised 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 January 8, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

On November 4, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as receiver for Franklin Bank S.S.B, filed two complaints against MS&Co. in the District Court of the State of Texas. Each was styledFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B v. Morgan Stanley & Company LLC F/K/A Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and alleged that MS&Co. made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly underwritten and sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. 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 MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY, styledBank Hapoalim B.M. v. Morgan Stanley et al. The complaint alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $141 million. On July 28, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation, and on August 12, 2015, the plaintiff filed a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff inNational Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al.filed a complaint against MS&Co. and certain affiliates in the SDNY. The complaint alleged 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 MS&Co. to plaintiffs in the matter

28

was approximately $417 million. The complaint alleged violations of federal and various state securities laws and sought, among other things, rescissionary and compensatory damages. On November 23, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter.

On September 16, 2014, the Virginia Attorney General’s Office filed a civil lawsuit, styledCommonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Integra REC LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al., against MS&Co. and several other defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond related to RMBS. The lawsuit alleged that MS&Co. and the other defendants knowingly made misrepresentations and omissions related to the loans backing RMBS purchased by the Virginia Retirement System. The complaint asserts claims under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, as well as common law claims of actual and constructive fraud, and sought, among other things, treble damages and civil penalties. On January 6, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation. An order dismissing the action with prejudice was entered on January 28, 2016.

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against MS&Co. and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts styledFederal 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 alleged that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $385 million. The amended complaint raised claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and common law and sought, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff’s purchase of such certificates. On November 25, 2013, July 16, 2014, and May 19, 2015, respectively, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against MS&Co. with respect to three of the securitizations at issue. After these voluntary dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by MS&Co. or sold to plaintiff by MS&Co. was approximately $332 million. On July 13, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs inDeutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against MS&Co., certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by MS&Co. to plaintiff was approximately $634 million. The complaint alleged causes of action against MS&Co. for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 26, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation.

On April 1, 2016, the California Attorney General’s Office filed an action against MS&Co. in California state court styledCalifornia v. Morgan Stanley, et al., on behalf of California investors, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California Teachers’ Retirement System. The complaint alleged that MS&Co. made misrepresentations and omissions regarding residential mortgage-backed securities and notes issued by the Cheyne SIV, and asserts violations of the California False Claims Act and other state laws and sought treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. On April 24, 2019, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation.

29

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.

30

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, 2019.

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

The Partnership no longer offers Units.

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

Item 3.    Defaults Upon Senior Securities.— None.

Item 4.    Mine Safety Disclosures.— Not applicable.

Item 5.    Other Information.

Certain impacts to public health conditions particular to the coronavirus(COVID-19) outbreak that occurred subsequent to March 31, 2020 could impact the operations and financial performance of the Partnership investments. The extent of the impact to the financial performance of the Partnership investments will depend on future developments, including (i) the duration and spread of the outbreak, (ii) the restrictions and advisories, (iii) the effects on the financial markets, and (iv) the effects on the economy overall, all of which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted. If the financial performance of the Partnership investments is impacted because of these factors for an extended period, the Partnership performance may be adversely affected.

31

Item 6.    Exhibits.

Notes to Exhibits List

* Submitted electronically herewith.

32

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.

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P.

Date: May 11, 2020

The General Partner which signed the above is the only party authorized to act for the registrant. The registrant has no principal executive officer, principal financial officer, controller, or principal accounting officer and has no Board of Directors.

33