UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2013

o Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Commission file number: 0-50269

ML SELECT FUTURES I L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware		13-3879393
(State or other jurisdiction of		(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)		Identification No.)

c/o Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC

Four World Financial Center, 11th Floor

250 Vesey Street

New York, New York 10080

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

609-274-5838

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

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

Large accelerated filer o	Accelerated filer o

Non-accelerated filer x		Smaller reporting company o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No x

The Units of limited partnership interest of the registrant are not publicly traded. Accordingly, there is no aggregate market value for the registrant’s outstanding equity that is readily determinable.

As of February 28, 2014, limited partnership units with an aggregate Net Asset Value of $42,566,133 were outstanding and held by non-affiliates.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

The registrant’s 2013 Annual Report and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, the annual report to security holders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, is incorporated by reference into Part II, Item 8, and Part IV hereof and filed as an Exhibit herewith. Copies of the annual report are available free of charge by contacting Alternative Investments Client Services at 1-866-MER-ALTS.

ML SELECT FUTURES I L. P.

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2013 ON FORM 10-K

Table of Contents

		PAGE

PART I

Item 1.	Business	1

Item 1A.	Risk Factors	10

Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	19

Item 2.	Properties	19

Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	19

Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	19

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	19

Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	20

Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	24

Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	35

Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	39

Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	40

Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	40

Item 9B.	Other Information	40

PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	41

Item 11.	Executive Compensation	44

Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	44

Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	45

Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	45

PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	46

CONDENSED SCHEDULES OF INVESTMENTS

The Partnership’s investments, defined as net unrealized profit (loss) on open contracts in the Statements of Financial Condition, as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 are as follows:

December 31, 2013

	Long Positions						Short Positions							Net Unrealized
Commodity Industry	Number of	Unrealized			Percent of		Number of		Unrealized			Percent of		Profit (Loss)			Percent of
Sector	Contracts/Notional*	Profit (Loss)			Partners’ Capital		Contracts/Notional*		Profit (Loss)			Partners’ Capital		on Open Positions			Partners’ Capital		Maturity Dates

Agriculture	22	$	(20,900	)	-0.04	%	(262	)	$	173,687		0.37	%	$	152,787		0.33	%	February 2014 - March 2014
Currencies - Futures	113	162,150			0.34	%	(68	)	163,250			0.34	%	325,400			0.68	%	March 2014
Currencies - Forwards*	19,098,996	(30,968		)	-0.07	%	(23,577,795	)	30,892			0.07	%	(76		)	0.00	%	March 2014
Interest rates	64	4,174			0.01	%	(182	)	6,789			0.01	%	10,963			0.02	%	March 2014 - June 2014
Energy	102	(184,290		)	-0.39	%	—					0.00	%	(184,290		)	-0.39	%	January 2014 - May 2014
Metals	289	(144,060		)	-0.30	%	(489	)	(62,515		)	-0.13	%	(206,575		)	-0.43	%	January 2014 - April 2014
Stock indices	565	1,555,768			3.29	%	—					0.00	%	1,555,768			3.29	%	January 2014 - March 2014

Total		$	1,341,874		2.84	%			$	312,103		0.66	%	$	1,653,977		3.50	%

December 31, 2012

	Long Positions						Short Positions							Net Unrealized
Commodity Industry	Number of	Unrealized			Percent of		Number of		Unrealized			Percent of		Profit (Loss)			Percent of
Sector	Contracts/Notional*	Profit (Loss)			Partners’ Capital		Contracts/Notional*		Profit (Loss)			Partners’ Capital		on Open Positions			Partners’ Capital		Maturity Dates

Agriculture	—	$	—		0.00	%	(268	)	$	160,609		0.24	%	$	160,609		0.24	%	February 2013 - March 2013
Currencies - Futures	576	(157,654		)	-0.23	%	(137	)	633,625			0.94	%	475,971			0.71	%	March 2013
Currencies - Forwards*	80,585,300	(155,845		)	-0.23	%	(91,171,266	)	(298,809		)	-0.44	%	(454,654		)	-0.67	%	January 2013 - March 2013
Interest rates	569	(186,285		)	-0.28	%	—		—			0.00	%	(186,285		)	-0.28	%	March 2013
Metals	—	—			0.00	%	(88	)	(90,822		)	-0.13	%	(90,822		)	-0.13	%	February 2013 - March 2013
Stock indices	781	(40,358		)	-0.06	%	—		—			0.00	%	(40,358		)	-0.06	%	January 2013 - March 2013

Total		$	(540,142	)	-0.80	%			$	404,603		0.61	%	$	(135,539	)	-0.19	%

* Currencies-Forwards are stated in notional amounts.

No individual contract’s unrealized profit or loss comprised greater than 5% of Partners’ Capital as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012.

With respect to each commodity industry sector listed in the above chart, the net unrealized profit (loss) on open positions is the sum of the unrealized profits (loss) of long positions and short positions of the open contracts, netting unrealized losses against unrealized profits as applicable. Net unrealized profit and loss provides an approximate measure of the exposure of the Partnership to the various sectors as of the date listed, although such exposure can change at any time.

Margin

When a futures or options on futures position is established, “initial margin” is calculated by the exchange on which the position is listed and deposited with a Futures Commission Merchant (“FCM”) that is a member of th e clearinghouse through which transactions on the relevant exchange are cleared. An FCM must, in turn, deposit initial margin with the clearinghouse to secure its obligations to the clearinghouse with respect to the positions of its customers. The amount of both the trader’s initial margin payment to the FCM and the FCM’s initial margin payment to the clearinghouse are determined on the basis of risk, taking into account the price and volatility of the commodity underlying the position and, in certain cases, the offsetting risks that exist within a portfolio of positions. On most exchanges, at the close of each trading day “variation margin,” representing the unrealized gain or loss on the open positions, is either credited to or debited from an account. A trader must maintain a minimum margin level for each outstanding futures position known as “maintenance margin,” which is set by the relevant exchange and based on the risk of the futures position, often a set percentage of the “initial margin.” If “variation margin” payments cause the “initial margin” to fall below “maintenance margin” levels, a “margin call” is made, requiring the trader to deposit additional margin or have its position closed out. A clearinghouse may have “maintenance margin” requirements for member FCMs. An FCM may require a higher level of “initial margin” and “maintenance margin” from the trader than the clearinghouse requires from the FCM, but generally will not allow lower margin levels. Margin is also required to be posted with counterparties when making investments through forward, swaps or other OTC instruments. The counterparties calculate margin based on the risk of the underlying commodity and will deposit margin with each other based on a previously agreed upon schedule. In general, approximately 10% to 30% of the Partnership’s assets are expected to be committed as margin for futures or options on futures positions at any one time, although these amounts could occasionally be substantially higher. The Partnership’s exposure and liability are not limited to the amount placed on margin, but are based on the total value of the futures contracts being traded. Partnership assets not committed to margin will be held in cash or cash equivalents and will earn interest as described below.

As of December 31, 2013 the Partnership employed $4,742,530 as initial margin to support futures positions and $592,427 as collateral supporting its forward positions, representing approximately 8.87% and 1.11%, respectively, of the Partnership’s total assets as of such date.

Custody of Assets

The Partnership’s financial assets presently consist predominantly of cash, futures and OTC FX forward and spot positions. In addition, the Partnership has authority to trade options on futures and forwards, but these contracts typically represent a small percentage of the Partnership’s financial assets, if any are traded at all. Futures and OTC forwards and other instruments typically constitute the majority of the Partnership’s investment risk, but the notional value of these instruments is not included on the Partnership’s balance sheet.

The vast majority of the net assets of the Partnership, is and has historically been, held in the form of cash. The Partnership’s cash is used in various ways. It can be:

· posted as margin with MLPF&S in segregated or secured accounts in connection with commodities trading on regulated exchanges;

· pledged as collateral to MLIB for OTC forwards or options on forwards or to other OTC prime brokers for other OTC investments;

· deposited in savings or demand deposit accounts with the Partnership’s custodian or other banking institutions, both in the United States and internationally;

· held in securities brokerage accounts maintained with MLPF&S; and

· invested in securities or other instruments generally viewed as cash equivalents, which are in turn held in segregated or secured accounts with MLPF&S.

Typically the vast majority of the Partnership’s assets are held in segregated or secured accounts with MLPF&S. In general, approximately 10% to 30% of the Partnership’s assets are expected to be required as margin or collateral at any one time. Approximately 90% of the Partnership’s assets are expected to be held in customer segregated accounts at MLPF&S pursuant to applicable Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) regulations to margin U.S. exchange-traded futures contracts and options thereon, or in customer secured accounts at MLPF&S and used to margin futures trading on non-U.S. exchanges pursuant to CFTC regulations. The remaining approximately 10% is expected to be deposited with MLIB, other OTC prime brokers, or one or more third-party collateral custodians as margin for OTC trades.

These amounts could be substantially higher or lower and there is no obligation to maintain margin or collateral within these or any other specific ranges.

Assets held in segregated or secured accounts at MLPF&S may be invested only in CFTC-permitted investments, which include U.S. government and government agency securities, commercial paper and corporate notes and bonds guaranteed by the U.S. government and money market mutual Partnerships. Under the applicable regulations, such permitted investments are subject to instrument and issuer-based concentration and time to maturity limits and must be managed with the objectives of preserving principal and maintaining liquidity.

Cash deposited in savings or demand deposit accounts with the Partnership’s custodian or other banking institutions may be in excess of the limits on federal insurance for deposits, and thus not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and would be subject to the risk of bank failure.

The General Partner, as sponsor of the Partnership, has a general policy of maintaining clearing and prime brokerage arrangements with its BAC affiliates, such as MLPF&S and MLIB, although the General Partner may, nevertheless, engage unaffiliated service providers as clearing brokers or prime brokers for the Partnership. Other affiliates may from time to time be involved in the clearing, custody or investment of the Partnership’s assets, including as prime brokers. However, the vast majority of the Partnership’s assets are held with, and therefore subject to the credit risk of, MLPF&S. The General Partner believes that its policy is in the best interest of investors due to the enhanced dependability and quality of service provided by MLPF&S and MLIB to the Partnership as a result of the General Partner’s relationship and shared corporate infrastructure with these affiliates. In addition, the General Partner believes that MLPF&S is well capitalized and that the Partnership benefits from the transparency provided to the General Partner, as an affiliate of MLPF&S, into the controls MLPF&S has implemented to comply with the various regulatory requirements designed to protect customer funds. However, there nonetheless exists a substantial risk of loss with respect to each of the above custody arrangements in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of MLIB or MLPF&S if it does not properly segregate customer funds. See “Risk Factors — Risk of Loss Due to the Bankruptcy or Failure of Counterparties, Custodians, Brokers and Exchanges” below for a more detailed discussion of these risks.

Subject to the interest income arrangements discussed below, each BAC entity holding Partnership assets, including MLPF&S, retains the additional economic benefit derived from possession and investment of those assets for the entity’s own account.

Cash Management and Interest

The General Partner is primarily responsible for the management of the Partnership’s “cash assets.” In exercising this responsibility, the General Partner’s primary considerations are safety of assets, seeking interest income, and the services provided by custodians. A vast majority of the Partnership’s cash has historically been held in futures brokerage accounts with affiliates. To a smaller degree, the Partnership’s cash assets may be held with the Partnership’s bank custodian, which is at present the administrator.

The General Partner retains the ability to change its cash management practices at any time, including by transferring a majority of the Partnership’s cash assets to the Partnership’s custodial bank accounts or other bank accounts or by retaining an asset management firm to invest the Partnership’s cash assets in U.S. government and money market securities. Bank deposits may be in either savings accounts that pay interest, or demand deposit accounts, which may or may not pay interest and which may or may not be subject to FDIC insurance. Any of these banks or asset management firms may be affiliated with the General Partner if the General Partner believes that to be in the best interests of the investors in the Partnership.

MLPF&S and any other BAC affiliates that hold the Partnership’s cash assets receive economic benefits, which may be substantial, from holding this cash, even in low interest rate environments in which the Partnership receives little or no interest on these cash assets.

BAC’s “Interest Earning Program,” which offers interest on cash balances subject to a negotiated schedule, will generally apply to Partnership cash assets during any time they are maintained by the General Partner with its affiliates. The present interest rate under the Interest Earning Program on U.S. dollar cash balances is the daily effective federal funds rate less 20 basis points, recalculated and accrued daily, and subject to a floor of 0%. The daily effective federal funds rate is a volume-weighted average of rates on trades arranged by major brokers and is calculated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York using data provided by the brokers. Interest is computed based upon the daily net equity balance of the

Partnership’s account and is posted to the Partnership’s account on a monthly basis.

At present, due to the low interest rate environment that has prevailed in the U.S. since 2008, the Interest Earning Program’s U.S. dollar floor rate of 0% applies. In interest rate environments like the current one in which the Partnership does not earn interest under the Interest Earning Program, the General Partner may seek to transfer cash from affiliates if it believes that any interest earned on this cash was consistent with its goal of safely maintaining these assets and otherwise would offset the advantages of maintaining cash with its affiliates.

MLPF&S, in the course of acting as commodity broker for the Partnership, will have use of Partnership cash and earn interest and receive other economic benefits as a result. The interest income arrangements with regard to cash held with MLPF&S will be equivalent with those under the Interest Earning Program as discussed above.

Charges

The following table summarizes the charges incurred by the Partnership for the years ended 2013, 2012 and 2011.

	2013				2012				2011
Charges	Dollar Amount		% of Average Month-End Net Assets		Dollar Amount		% of Average Month-End Net Assets		Dollar Amount		% of Average Month-End Net Assets
Wrap Fee	$	3,446,043	5.90	%	$	5,491,333	5.79	%	$	7,959,412	5.83	%
Profit Shares	—		0.00	%	—		0.00	%	—		0.00	%
Total Expenses	$	3,446,043	5.90	%	$	5,491,333	5.79	%	$	7,959,412	5.83	%

The foregoing table does not reflect: (i) the bid-ask spreads paid by the Partnership on forward trading or (ii) the benefits which may be derived by BAC from the deposit of certain of the Partnership’s U.S. dollar assets maintained at MLPF&S. id-ask spreads and brokerage commissions are components of the trading profit or loss of the Partnership rather than a distinct expense item separable from the Partnership’s trading; they are netted against realized and unrealized trading gains or losses in determining trading profit or loss. Benefits derived by BAC from the deposit of the Partnership’s assets at MLPF&S are neither a direct expense of the Partnership nor readily quantifiable.

The Partnership’s average month-end Net Assets during 2013, 2012 and 2011 equaled $58,433,968, $94,773,855 and $136,420,002, respectively.

During 2013, 2012 and 2011 the Partnership earned $36,955, $84,330 and $85,533 in interest income, or approximately 0.06%, 0.09 % and 0.06% of the Partnership’s average month-end Net Assets.

Description of Current Charges

Recipient	Nature of Payment	Amount of Payment
MLPF&S	Brokerage commissions	A flat-rate monthly brokerage commission of 0.458 of 1% (a 5.5% annual rate) of the Partnership’s month-end assets (including the monthly interest credit and before reduction for accrued month-end redemptions, distributions, Administrative Fees (defined below) or Profit Share (defined below), in each case as of the end of the month of determination). Such Brokerage Commission covers Sunrise’s monthly consulting fee as well as ongoing operating costs such as floor brokerage and exchange, clearing and National Futures Association (“NFA”) fees incurred in the Partnership’s trading (which include the clearing fees and sales commissions charged by MLPF&S and the prime brokerage fees charged by MLIB).

MLPF&S	Use of Partnership assets	BAC may derive an economic benefit from the deposit of certain of the Partnership’s U.S. dollar assets in accounts maintained at MLPF&S.

MLAI	Administrative fees	Partnership’s month-end assets (including the monthly interest credit and before reduction for accrued month-end redemptions, distributions, Administrative Fees (defined below) or Profit Share (defined below), in each case as of the end of the month of determination). Such Brokerage Commission covers Sunrise’s monthly consulting fee as well as ongoing operating costs such as floor brokerage and exchange, clearing and National Futures Association (“NFA”) fees incurred in the Partnership’s trading (which include the clearing fees and sales commissions charged by MLPF&S and the prime brokerage fees charged by MLIB).

MLIB (or a BAC affiliate); Other counterparties	Bid—ask spreads	Bid—ask spreads are not accounted for separately as an accounting item because bid-ask spreads are an integral part of the price paid or received on all contracts for the purpose of generally accepted accounting principles.

MLIB (or a BAC affiliate); Other counterparties	EFP differentials	Certain of the Partnership’s currency trades may be executed in the form of “exchange of futures for physical” transactions, in which a counterparty (which may be MLIB or a BAC affiliate) receives an additional “differential” spread for exchanging the Partnership’s cash currency positions for equivalent futures positions.

Sunrise	Annual Profit Share	23% of any New Trading Profits generated by the Partnership as of the end of each calendar year (or upon redemption of Units). (“Profit Share”) “New Trading Profits” means the increase, if any, in cumulative net trading profits as of the end of any calendar year over the previous all-time high in cumulative net trading profits as of the end of any

		previous calendar year. New Trading Profits include all net trading profits but not interest income and after reduction for 3.75% of the Brokerage Commission.

Sunrise	Consulting fees	MLPF&S pays Sunrise monthly Consulting fees of 0.083 of 1% of the Partnership’s month-end assets (a 1% annual rate), provided that for such calculation the month-end assets will be reduced by the Brokerage Commission rate plus the Administrative Fee rate less the consulting fee rate.

MLPF&S; Others	Reimbursement of delivery, insurance, storage and any other extraordinary charges; taxes (if any)	Actual payments to third parties, which are expected to be negligible.

MLPF&S; Others	Extraordinary expenses	Actual costs incurred; none paid to date.

Regulation

The CFTC has delegated to the National Futures Association (“NFA”) responsibility for the registration of “commodity trading advisors,” “commodity pool operators,” “futures commission merchants,” “introducing brokers” and their respective associated persons, and “floor brokers” and “floor traders.” The Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) requires commodity pool operators such as MLAI, commodity trading advisors such as the Trading Advisor and commodity brokers or FCMs such as MLPF&S to be registered and to comply with various reporting and record keeping requirements. CFTC regulations also require FCMs to maintain a minimum level of net capital. In addition, the CFTC and certain commodities exchanges have established limits referred to as “speculative position limits” on the maximum net long or net short speculative positions that any person may hold or control in any particular futures or options contracts traded on U.S. commodities exchanges. All accounts owned or managed by the Trading Advisor will be combined for position limit purposes. The Trading Advisor could be required to liquidate positions in order to comply with such limits. Any such liquidation could result in substantial costs to the Partnership. In addition, many futures exchanges impose limits beyond which the price of a futures contract may not trade during the course of a trading day, and there is a potential for a futures contract to reach its daily price limit for several days in a row, making it impossible for the Trading Advisor to liquidate a position and thereby experiencing dramatic losses. Currency forward contracts are not regulated as “swaps” under the CEA, but are subject to governmental regulation such as mandatory reporting and business conduct standards for swap dealers and major swap participants to the extent otherwise applicable to swaps under the CEA and applicable rules of the CFTC, see Item 1A “Risk Factors¾“F/X Forward Trading” and “ ¾Regulatory Changes Could Restrict the Partnership’s Operations.”

Other than in respect of the registration requirements pertaining to the Partnership’s securities under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Securities Exchange Act”), the Partnership is generally not subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). However, MLAI itself is registered as an “investment adviser” under the Advisers Act. MLPF&S is also regulated by the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

(d) Financial Information about Geographic Areas

The Partnership does not engage in material operations in foreign countries, nor is a material portion of the Partnership’s revenue derived from customers in foreign countries.

The Partnership trades on a number of foreign commodity exchanges. The Partnership does not engage in the sales of goods or services.

Item 1A: Risk Factors

Past Performance Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results

There can be no assurance that Sunrise’s trading strategy will produce profitable results. The performance of the Partnership is entirely unpredictable, and the past performance of the Partnership as well as of Sunrise is not necessarily indicative of their future results. There can be no assurance that the performance of the Partnership will achieve its investment objectives or avoid substantial or total loss.

The price data which Sunrise has researched in developing its programs may not reflect the changing dynamics of future markets, and if it does not, the Expanded Diversified Program would have little chance of being profitable. An influx of new market participants, changes in market regulation, international political developments, demographic changes and numerous other factors can contribute to once-successful strategies becoming outdated. Not all of these factors can be identified, much less quantified. There can be no assurance that Sunrise will trade profitably for the Partnership.

The Large Size of the Partnership’s Trading Positions Increases the Risk of Sudden, Major Losses

The low margin requirements normally required in futures and OTC trading permit traders to use an extraordinarily high degree of economic leverage. The Partnership may take positions with a face value of up to approximately 15 times the total equity of the Partnership. Consequently, even small price movements can cause major losses.

Futures and forward trading is highly leveraged, and market price levels are volatile and materially affected by unpredictable factors such as weather and governmental intervention. This combination of leverage and volatility creates a high degree of risk. Additionally, although Sunrise may initiate stop-loss orders on certain positions to limit this risk, there can be no assurance that any stop-loss order will be executed at the desired price or time. In any event, Sunrise anticipates that stop-loss orders will not be employed with respect to the majority of positions established for the Partnership.

Sunrise Analyzes Only Technical Market Data, Not Any Economic Factors External to Market Prices

The Sunrise programs focus exclusively on statistical analysis of market prices. Technical strategies rely on information intrinsic to the market itself to determine trades, such as prices, price patterns, volume and volatility. Consequently, technical strategies can incur major losses when factors exogenous to the markets themselves, including political events, natural catastrophes, acts of war or terrorism dominate the markets. During such periods, Sunrise’s historical price analysis could establish positions on the wrong side of the price movements caused by such events. The widespread use of technical trading systems frequently results in numerous managers’ attempting to execute similar trades at or about the same time, altering trading patterns and affecting market liquidity.

The likelihood of the Units’ being profitable could be materially diminished during periods when events external to the markets themselves have an important impact on prices.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, market judgment and discretion generally play some part in all managed futures strategies. To the extent Sunrise exercises subjective trading judgment, less consistent results may be produced than would be obtained in the absence of such judgment.

Derivatives Risks Generally

Sunrise uses derivative instruments, primarily futures, in implementing its trading program. It also has authority to trade, and has in the past traded, currencies in the OTC F/X markets, in addition to its trading in the futures markets. he market for many types of these derivative instruments is comparatively illiquid and inefficient, creating the potential for substantial mispricings, as well as sustained deviations between theoretical and market value. In addition, the derivatives market is, in comparison to other markets, a relatively new market, and the events of 2008 and 2009, including the bailout of American International Group, Inc., demonstrated that even the most sophisticated market participants may misunderstand how the market in derivatives will perform during periods of unusual price volatility or instability, market illiquidity, or credit distress. The primary risks associated with the use of derivatives are model risk, market risk and counterparty risk.

The Partnership’s investments in OTC derivatives are subject to greater risk of counterparty default and less liquidity than exchange-traded derivatives, although exchange-traded derivatives are subject to risk of failure of the exchange on which they are traded and the clearinghouse through which they are guaranteed. Counterparty risk includes not only the risk of default and failure to pay mark-to-market amounts and return risk premium, if any, but also the risk that the market value of OTC derivatives will fall if the creditworthiness of the counterparties to those derivatives weakens.

In addition, there are increased risks associated with offshore OTC trading, including the risk that assets held by offshore brokers and unregulated trading counterparties may not benefit from the protection afforded to customer funds deposited with regulated FCMs or broker-dealers.

The prices of derivative instruments can be highly volatile. Price movements of derivative instruments are influenced by, among other things, interest rates, changing supply and demand relationships, trade, fiscal, monetary and exchange control programs and policies of governments, and national and international political and economic events and policies. In addition, governments from time to time intervene, directly and by regulation, in certain markets. This intervention often is intended directly to influence prices and may, together with other factors, cause all of such markets to move rapidly in the same direction because of, among other things, interest rate fluctuations.

There was substantial disruption in the derivatives markets related to the bankruptcies of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and MF Global Inc. and uncertainty relating to the government bailout of American International Group, Inc. This disruption and uncertainty can cause substantial losses if transactions are prematurely terminated, especially due to default when payment may be delayed or completely lost. Uncertainties in the derivatives markets continue due to proposed regulatory initiatives, new regulations requiring OTC derivatives clearing, and allegations of inappropriate behavior by market participants to cause or avoid payments under credit default swaps.

F/X Forward Trading

The Partnership may trade currencies in the F/X markets (“F/X Markets”), in addition to its trading in the futures markets. Prospective investors must recognize that the Partnership’s OTC currency trading takes place in largely unregulated markets, rather than on futures exchanges. The responsibility for performing under a particular transaction currently rests solely with the counterparties to that transaction, not with any exchange or clearinghouse. As a result, the Partnership is exposed to the credit risk of the OTC counterparties with which it trades and deposits collateral, including that of MLIB as the F/X prime broker. See “Risk of Loss Due to the Bankruptcy or Failure of Counterparties, Custodians, Brokers and Exchanges,” below.

The Partnership is also subject to the risk that a forward counterparty may not settle a transaction in accordance with its terms, because the counterparty is unwilling or unable to do so, potentially resulting in significant losses. A counterparty’s failure to perform could occur in respect of an offsetting forward contract on which the Partnership remains obligated to perform. The Partnership will not, however, be excused from performance under any forward contracts into which it has entered due to defaults under other forward contracts. In addition, counterparties generally have the right to terminate trades under a number of circumstances including, for example, declines in the Partnership’s net assets and certain “key person” events. Any premature termination of the Partnership’s currency forward trades could result in significant losses for the Partnership, because the Partnership may be unable to quickly re-establish those trades and may only be able to do so at disadvantageous prices. Forward market counterparties are under no obligation to enter into forward transactions with the Partnership, including transactions through which the Partnership is attempting to liquidate open positions. In addition, the prices offered for the same forward contract may vary significantly among different forward market participants.

The Reform Act amended the definition of “eligible contract participant,” and the Partnership expects to meet the amended definition so long as its total assets exceed $10 million. If the Partnership does not meet the definition of “eligible contract participant,” it could lead to the Partnership’s bearing higher upfront and mark-to-market margin, less favorable trade pricing, and the possible imposition of new or increased fees. “Retail forex” markets could also be significantly less liquid than the interbank market. Moreover, the creditworthiness of the counterparties with whom the Partnership may be required to trade could be significantly weaker than the creditworthiness of MLIB and the currency forward counterparties with which the Partnership would otherwise engage for its currency forward transactions.

The imposition of credit controls by governmental authorities or the implementation of regulations pursuant to the Reform Act might limit forward trading to less than that which MLAI would otherwise recommend, to the possible detriment of the Partnership.

The Partnership May Trade Options

The Partnership may trade options on futures contracts. Although successful options trading requires many of the same skills as successful futures and forward trading, the risks involved are different. For example, the assessment of near-term market volatility — which is directly reflected in the price of outstanding options — can be of much greater significance in trading options than it is in many long-term futures strategies. The use of options can be extremely expensive if market volatility is incorrectly predicted. A purchaser of options is exposed to the risk of loss of the entire premium paid; a seller, or writer, of call options is exposed to the risk of theoretically unlimited loss, and the seller of put options is exposed to the risk of substantial loss far in excess of the premium received.

The Partnership May Engage in Exchange of Futures for Physicals Transactions

Sunrise may engage in EFP transactions on behalf of the Partnership. As is the case with executing a transaction purely on an exchange or purely in the OTC market, EFP transactions, which are done partially on a futures exchange and partially in the OTC market, involve transaction costs.

“Whipsaw” Markets; Lack of the Types of Price Trends Which the Expanded Diversified Program Can Identify Will Cause Major Losses

Many technical trading systems are trend-following. Trend-following systems generally anticipate that a majority of their trades will be unprofitable and seek to achieve overall profitability by substantial gains made on a limited number of positions. These strategies are generally only successful in markets in which strong price trends occur. In stagnant markets in which these trends do not occur, or in “whipsaw markets” in which apparent trends develop but then quickly reverse, trend-following trading systems are likely to incur substantial losses.

Increased Competition from Other Trend-Following Traders Could Reduce Sunrise’s Profitability

The aggregate capital committed to the managed futures sector in general is at an all-time high. The more capital that is traded in these markets, or that is committed to any one particular strategy, the greater the competition for a finite number of positions and the less the profit potential for all strategies or for any particular strategy.

The widespread use of technical trading systems frequently results in numerous managers attempting to execute similar trades at or about the same time, altering trading patterns and affecting market liquidity. Furthermore, the profit potential of trend-following systems may be diminished by the changing character of the markets, which may make historical price data (on which technical trading systems are based) only marginally relevant to future market patterns.

Sunrise’s High Level of Equity Under Management Could Lead to Diminished Returns

There appears to be a tendency for the rates of return achieved by managed futures advisors to decline as assets under management increase. Sunrise has not agreed to limit the amount of additional equity which it may manage, and although Sunrise’s equity under management is not at or near its all-time high, it may reach such level in the future.

The more money Sunrise manages, the more difficult it may be for Sunrise to trade profitably because of the difficulty of trading larger positions without adversely affecting prices and performance. Large trades may result in more price slippage than smaller orders.

Illiquid Markets Could Make It Impossible for Sunrise to Realize Profits or Limit Losses

In illiquid markets, certain positions held by the Partnership may become illiquid, preventing Sunrise from acquiring positions otherwise indicated by its strategy or making it impossible for Sunrise to close out positions against which the market is moving. There are numerous factors which can contribute to market illiquidity, far too many for Sunrise to be able to predict. There can be no assurance that a market which has been highly liquid in the past will not experience periods of unexpected illiquidity.

Most U.S. futures exchanges, for example, limit fluctuations in some futures contract prices during a single day by regulations referred to as “daily price limits.” During a single trading day no trades may be executed in these contracts at prices beyond the daily price limit. Once the price of a futures contract has increased or decreased to the limit point, positions can be neither taken nor liquidated. Futures prices have occasionally moved to the daily limit for several

consecutive days with little or no trading. Similar occurrences could prevent the Partnership from promptly liquidating unfavorable positions and subject the Partnership to substantial losses. Also, the CFTC or exchanges may suspend or limit trading. Trading on non-U.S. exchanges may also be subject to price fluctuation limits and are otherwise subject to periods of significant illiquidity. Trading in the forward currency and other OTC markets is currently not subject to daily limits, although such trading is also subject to periods of significant illiquidity.

Possible Effects of Speculative Position Limits

The CFTC and U.S. commodities exchanges have established limits referred to as “speculative position limits” on the maximum net long or net short speculative positions that any person may hold or control in any particular futures or options on futures contracts traded on U.S. commodities exchanges. All proprietary or client accounts owned or managed by the Trading Advisor are combined for purposes of calculating position limits. The Trading Advisor could be required to liquidate positions held for the Partnership, or may not be able to fully implement the Trading Program, in order to comply with such limits, even though the positions attributable to the Partnership do not themselves trigger the position limits or are a small portion of the aggregate positions directed by the Trading Advisor. Position limits could force the Partnership to liquidate profitable positions, result in a tracking error between the Partnership’s portfolio and the Trading Advisor’s standard Trading Program and cause the Partnership to incur substantial transaction costs.

In October 2011, the CFTC adopted rules that, among other things, established a separate position limits regime for 28 so-called “exempt,” i.e., metals and energy, and agricultural futures and options contracts and their economically equivalent swap contracts. Position limits in spot months were generally set at 25% of the official estimated deliverable supply of the underlying commodity while position limits related to non-spot months were generally set at 10% of open interest in the first 25,000 contracts and 2.5% of the open interest thereafter. On September 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion that vacated these rules. In November 2013, the CFTC proposed a new set of speculative position rules which are not yet finalized (or effective).

In addition, the Reform Act significantly expands the CFTC’s authority to impose position limits with respect to futures contracts, options on futures contracts, swaps that are economically equivalent to futures or options on futures, swaps that are traded on a regulated exchange and certain swaps that perform a significant price discovery function.

The General Partner is subject to CFTC-imposed position limits through its control of the Partnership, and will have to aggregate positions of the Partnership in determining whether the position limits are reached. The rules proposed by the CFTC in November 2013, if implemented in substance, in addition to expanding the contracts subject to CFTC-imposed position limits, narrow certain exemptions from the aggregation requirements, making it more likely that a party such as the General Partner hiring multiple trading advisors may be required to aggregate the positions controlled by the various trading advisors. Although the General Partner may claim exemption from the aggregation requirements for the Partnership, if this aggregation is required, Sunrise may not be able to implement its trading program for the Partnership in the same manner as for its other clients, causing the Partnership to underperform other accounts utilizing its Trading Program, or the Partnership may have to liquidate trading positions when Sunrise would otherwise not advise doing so, resulting in losses to the Partnership.

The Partnership Trades Extensively in Non-U.S. Markets; These Markets Are Less Regulated Than U.S. Markets and Are Subject to Exchange Rate, Market Practice and Political Risks

The Expanded Diversified Program trades a great deal outside the United States. From time to time, as much as 40% of the Partnership’s overall market exposure could involve positions taken on non-U.S. markets (excluding non-U.S. exchange transactions in U.S. markets). Non-U.S. trading involves risks — including exchange-rate exposure, possible governmental intervention and lack of regulation — which U.S. trading may not. In addition, the Partnership may not have the same access to certain positions on non-U.S. exchanges as do local traders, and the historical market data on which Sunrise bases its strategies may not be as reliable or accessible as it is in the United States. Certain non-U.S. exchanges may also be in a more or less developmental stage so that prior price histories may not be indicative of current price dynamics. The rights of clients in the event of the insolvency or bankruptcy of a non-U.S. market or broker are also likely to be more limited than in the case of U.S. markets or brokers.

Trading on non-U.S. exchanges is not regulated by any U.S. government agency and may involve certain risks not applicable to trading on U.S. exchanges. For example, some non-U.S. exchanges, in contrast to U.S. exchanges, are “principals’ markets” similar to the forward markets in which performance is the responsibility only of the individual

member with whom the Partnership has entered into a futures contract and not of any exchange or clearing corporation. In such cases, the Partnership will be subject to the risk of the inability or refusal to perform with respect the individual member with whom the Partnership has entered into a futures contract. Trading on non-U.S. exchanges may involve the additional risks of expropriation, burdensome or confiscatory taxation (including taxes on specific trading activities), moratoriums, exchange or investment controls and political or diplomatic disruptions, each of which might materially adversely affect the Partnership’s trading activities. The Partnership could incur substantial losses trading on non-U.S. exchanges to which it would not have been subject had Sunrise limited its trading to U.S. markets.

The U.S. tax treatment of non-U.S. futures trading may be adverse compared to the tax treatment of U.S. futures trading. The profits and losses derived from trading non-U.S. futures and options will generally be denominated in non-U.S. currencies. Consequently, the Partnership will be subject to exchange-rate risk in trading those contracts.

Governments in non-U.S. markets may impose F/X controls at will, making it impossible to convert local currency into other currencies. Should the Partnership trade on futures exchanges outside the United States or otherwise invest in non-U.S. markets, these controls may effectively prevent Partnership capital from being removed from a country where its futures contracts and other investments are traded. In addition, some countries do not have fully convertible currencies as a matter of policy, adding cost or delay to the trading of currency investments by the Partnership. The imposition of currency controls by a non-U.S. government may negatively affect performance and liquidity in the Partnership as capital becomes trapped in that country.

Further, U.S. regulatory authorities may be unable to compel the enforcement of the rules of regulatory authorities or markets in non-U.S. jurisdictions where transactions for the Partnership may be effected.

Risk of Loss Due to the Bankruptcy or Failure of Counterparties, Brokers and Exchanges

The Partnership is exposed to the risk that the bankruptcy or insolvency of its trading counterparties and other entities holding Partnership assets — such as broker-dealers, FCMs, futures exchanges, clearinghouses, banks or other financial institutions, particularly MLPF&S, MLIB and their affiliates — could result in all or a substantial portion of the Partnership’s assets being lost permanently or impounded for a matter of years pending the final disposition of legal proceedings. A bankruptcy or insolvency of this kind, or the threat of one, may cause the General Partner to decide to liquidate the Partnership or suspend, limit or otherwise alter trading, perhaps causing the Partnership to miss significant profit opportunities.

MLAI has historically preferred BAC affiliates in clearing and prime brokerage relationships, and as a result has maintained the vast majority of its cash in futures brokerage accounts with its affiliates. This policy exposes the Partnership to the specific credit risk of these BAC affiliates because balances in these accounts are not subject to FDIC or other form of deposit insurance against loss from failure of the BAC affiliate. Balances maintained with clearing brokers are, however, subject to the protections for customer segregated cleared swaps customer accounts and secured accounts discussed below.

MLAI’s policy that the Trading Advisor use MLPF&S and MLIB may increase the risks of insolvency described above by preventing the diversification of brokers and counterparties used by the Partnership.

MLAI may have limited control over the selection of counterparties by the Partnership. The Partnership also may not be restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty, regulated or unregulated, or from concentrating any or all of its transactions with a single counterparty or limited number of counterparties or from initially transacting, clearing or brokering with a non-BAC broker and from “giving up” those trades to MLPF&S or the MLIB. In addition, to the extent assets are held at entities other than MLPF&S and the MLIB, MLAI may have limited ability to assess the extent to which the Trading Advisor maintains the Partnership’s assets in unregulated accounts subject to the bankruptcy of the counterparties holding such assets.

The following paragraphs discuss the various uses of the Partnership’s assets and the risks of loss — in addition to losses from trading — associated with each use.

Margin for Commodities Trading. Although the General Partner believes that MLPF&S is appropriately capitalized to function as the Partnership’s FCM, cash posted as margin for commodities trading with MLPF&S is nevertheless subject to the risk of insolvency of MLPF&S. The Partnership maintains cash deposits with MLPF&S in segregated accounts, which are required by CFTC regulations to be separate from its proprietary assets for futures and options trading on U.S. exchanges. Funds held in segregated accounts are intended to be readily identifiable as customer funds in the

event of MLPF&S’s bankruptcy and are expected to be reserved for distribution to customers of MLPF&S. If MLPF&S did not comply with the segregation requirement, however, the assets of the Partnership might not be fully protected. Even given proper segregation, the Partnership may be subject to a risk of loss of its funds because, although CFTC regulations require that FCMs invest customer funds only in certain types of interest bearing financial instruments, these instruments are still subject to credit and market risk. As a result, if the instruments in which customer segregated funds are invested lose value, there would be a shortfall in customer segregated funds held by MLPF&S in the event of MLPF&S’s insolvency.

In addition, there may be a shortfall in customer segregated funds held by MLPF&S in the event of a substantial default by one or more of MLPF&S’s other customers. If MLPF&S becomes insolvent, only a pro rata share of all property available for distribution to all of MLPF&S’s customers would be recovered, whether or not another customer also defaults and even if this property is held in segregated accounts.

MLPF&S is required by CFTC regulations to maintain in a secured account the amount required to margin futures and options positions established on non-U.S. futures exchanges in order to protect customer funds in the event of MLPF&S’s bankruptcy. While the secured account requirement relating to trading non-U.S. futures exchanges is similar in some respects to the segregation requirement relating to trading on U.S. futures exchanges, they are not identical and there are special risks associated with funds maintained in a secured account. Funds held in a secured account may be commingled with funds of non-U.S. persons and, because they are by necessity held in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, are subject to different insolvency laws and customer protection regulations, which may be less favorable than U.S. laws and regulations. Moreover, funds transferred from a secured account to a non-U.S. FCM, exchange or clearing agency to margin trading on non-U.S. futures exchanges are not subject to the same limitations on permissible investments as funds held by U.S. FCMs. In addition to these special risks, funds held in a secured account are subject to risks comparable to those applicable to funds in a segregated account, namely that MLPF&S will not comply with the relevant regulations, that investments in the account will decline in value, of a shortfall in the event of the default by another customer, and that, if, BAC owns 10% or more of the Partnership, the Partnership’s assets will not be protected as “customer funds.”

If the Partnership deposits assets with a particular entity and those assets are not held in segregation or in a secured account as “customer funds” for any of the reasons discussed above, in the event of the entity’s insolvency the Partnership could be a general creditor of the entity even with regard to property specifically traceable to the Partnership’s account. As a result, the Partnership’s claim would be paid along with the claims of other general creditors and the Partnership would be subject to the loss of its entire deposit with the party.

To the extent the Partnership enters into cleared swap transactions, the Partnership will deposit collateral with MLPF&S in cleared swaps customer accounts, which are required by CFTC regulations to be separate from its proprietary collateral posted for cleared swaps transactions. Cleared swap customer collateral is subject to regulations that closely parallel the regulations governing customer segregated funds but provide certain additional protections to cleared swaps collateral in the event of an FCM or FCM customer default. For example, in the event of a default of both the FCM and a customer of the FCM, a clearing house is only permitted to access the cleared swaps collateral in the legally separate (but operationally comingled) account of the defaulting cleared swap customer of the FCM, as opposed to the treatment of customer segregated funds, under which the clearing house may access all of the commingled customer segregated funds of a defaulting FCM.

Collateral for OTC Transactions. Cash pledged as collateral with MLIB or any other OTC prime broker for OTC trades is subject to the risk of the insolvency of MLIB or other OTC prime broker. Unlike cash posted as margin for commodities trading on regulated exchanges is not required to be segregated or held in a secured account.

Bank Deposits. The vast majority of the cash deposited with banks would be in excess of the limits on federal insurance for deposits, and thus not insured by the FDIC, and would be subject to the risk of bank failure. Only up to $250,000 held in non-interest bearing demand deposit accounts will be insured under the FDIC’s general deposit insurance rules.

Cash in Securities Brokerage Accounts. Cash in securities brokerage accounts with MLPF&S is subject to the risk of insolvency of MLPF&S. While brokers are required to keep customer cash in a special reserve account for the benefit of customers, it is possible that a shortfall could exist in this account, in which case the Partnership, along with other customers, would suffer losses. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation provides protection against these losses, up to a limit, but the cash deposited by the Partnership in a securities brokerage account would far exceed the limit.

Direct Investments. Partnership investments in U.S. government securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. To the extent the Partnership makes investments in non-government securities it would be subject to a risk of loss that depended on the type of security.

Recent events underscore the risks described above. Significant losses incurred by many investment funds in relation to the bankruptcy and/or administration of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliates illustrate the risks incurred in both derivatives trading and custody/brokerage arrangements. The bankruptcy liquidation of MF Global Inc. also demonstrates that even customer funds subject to segregation requirements may be difficult for an FCM to locate, and customer funds held by an FCM in bankruptcy may not be distributed promptly and may be subject to a lengthy claims process.

Government Intervention; Market Disruptions

The global financial markets have in the past several years experienced pervasive and fundamental disruptions that have led to extensive and unprecedented governmental intervention. Government intervention has in certain cases been implemented on an “emergency” basis, suddenly and substantially eliminating market participants’ ability, at least on a temporary basis, to continue to implement certain strategies or manage the risk of their outstanding positions. In addition — as one would expect given the complexities of the financial markets and the limited time frame within which governments have taken action — these interventions typically have been difficult to interpret and unclear in scope and application, resulting in confusion and uncertainty. This confusion and uncertainty in itself has been materially detrimental to the efficient functioning of the markets as well as previously successful investment strategies.

The Partnership may incur substantial losses in the event of disrupted markets and other extraordinary events in which historical pricing relationships become materially distorted, the availability of credit is restricted or the ability to trade or invest capital, including exiting existing positions, is otherwise impaired. The risk of loss from pricing distortions is compounded by the fact that in disrupted markets many positions become illiquid, making it difficult or impossible to close out positions against which the markets are moving. The financing available to private investment funds such as the Partnership from banks, dealers and other counterparties is typically reduced in disrupted markets. Any reduction may result in substantial losses to the Partnership. Market disruptions may from time to time cause dramatic losses for the Partnership and these events can result in otherwise historically low-risk strategies performing with unprecedented volatility and risk.

Regulatory Changes Could Restrict the Partnership’s Operations

The Partnership implements speculative, highly leveraged strategies. From time to time there is governmental scrutiny of these types of strategies and political pressure to regulate their activities. The CFTC and the exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of a market emergency, including, for example, the retroactive implementation of speculative position limits or higher margin requirements, the establishment of daily price limits and the suspension of trading. The regulation of futures, swaps, forward and options transactions in the United States is a rapidly changing area of law and is subject to modification by government and judicial action. In addition, as described in further detail above under “Possible Effects of Speculative Position Limits,” the U.S. Congress and the CFTC have expressed the concern that speculative traders, and commodity funds in particular, may be responsible for unwarranted and dramatic swings in the prices of commodities and the CFTC enacted position limits designed to address such speculative trading. Non-U.S. governments have from time to time blamed the declines of their currencies on speculative currency trading and imposed restrictions on speculative trading in certain markets.

Regulatory changes could adversely affect the Partnership by restricting the markets in which it trades, otherwise limiting its trading and/or increasing the taxes to which investors are subject. Adverse regulatory initiatives could develop suddenly and without notice.

The Reform Act includes provisions that substantially increase the regulation of the OTC derivatives markets. Regulations implementing the Reform Act may require that a substantial portion of derivatives currently traded over the counter be executed in regulated markets and submitted for clearing to regulated clearinghouses. Those OTC derivatives may include OTC F/X forwards and swaps which may be traded by the Partnership.

Although the U.S. Treasury has the discretion to exclude F/X forwards and swaps from certain of the new regulatory requirements, it has done so to date only in limited circumstances. Forwards and swaps that are not so excluded may be required by the Reform Act to be centrally cleared or traded on a regulated market. The Reform Act may also require other OTC derivatives traded by the Partnership, if any, to be centrally cleared or traded on a regulated market. This may

subject the Partnership, the Trading Advisor, MLAI and/or the Partnership’s counterparties to additional regulatory requirements including minimum initial and variation margin requirements, minimum capital requirements, registration with the SEC and/or the CFTC, new business conduct standards, disclosure requirements, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, transparency requirements, position limits, limitations on conflicts of interest and other regulatory burdens. Certain of these requirements apply to currency forwards and swaps even if they are excluded by the U.S. Treasury. Certain of these regulatory requirements could affect the Partnership, the Trading Advisor, or MLAI directly, while others could impact the Partnership d, the Trading Advisor or MLAI indirectly due to the impact of the requirements on the Partnership’s counterparties. These new regulatory burdens would further increase the counterparties’ costs, which are expected to be passed through to other market participants such as the Partnership in the form of higher fees and less favorable dealer marks. They may also render certain strategies in which the Trading Advisor might otherwise engage impossible, or so costly that they will no longer be economical, to implement.

Although the Reform Act will require many OTC derivative transactions previously entered into on a principal-to-principal basis to be submitted for clearing by a regulated clearinghouse, some of the derivatives that may be traded by the Partnership may not be centrally cleared. The risk of counterparty non-performance can be significant in the case of these OTC instruments, and bid-ask spreads may be unusually wide in these heretofore substantially unregulated markets. While the Reform Act is intended in part to reduce these risks, its success in this respect may not be evident for some time after the Reform Act is fully implemented, a process that may take several years. In addition, while the Reform Act’s requirement that certain swaps be traded on a regulated market is intended to improve transparency in the market for these swaps, and may for more liquid swaps decrease trading costs, it may actually increase trading costs for less liquid swaps.

Certain steps are underway to regulate derivative transactions in the European Union (“E.U.”). On August 16, 2012, the E.U. Market Infrastructure Regulation on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (“EMIR”) became effective. EMIR will largely be implemented through secondary or “Level 2” measures, and it is uncertain when these measures will take effect given that they are still being negotiated. However, it is likely that some aspects of EMIR, such as the obligation to timely confirm uncleared OTC derivatives transactions, will become effective some time in 2013. EMIR introduces certain requirements in respect of OTC derivative contracts, which will apply primarily to “financial counterparties” such as E.U.-authorized investment firms, credit institutions, insurance companies, UCITS and alternative investment funds managed by E.U. authorized alternative investment fund managers, and non-financial counterparties exceeding a certain threshold. Certain obligations under EMIR will also apply to non-E.U. counterparties, such as the Partnership, where the counterparties’ contracts would be subject to EMIR if they were established in the E.U. and where their contract has a “direct, substantial and foreseeable effect” within the E.U., or where the obligation is necessary to prevent evasion of EMIR. In particular, EMIR imposes a general obligation to clear OTC derivative contracts through a duly authorized central counterparty (“CCP”) where those contracts belong to a class of derivatives which has been declared subject to the clearing obligation. Under EMIR, a CCP will be used to meet the clearing obligations by interposing itself between the counterparties to the eligible derivative contracts. CCPs will connect with some derivative counterparties through their clearing members; other counterparties may clear via “indirect” clearing arrangements. Each derivative counterparty will be required to post both initial and variation margin to the clearing member, which in turn will be required to post margin to the CCP, or to the clearing member’s client in an indirect arrangement. EMIR requires CCPs to accept only highly liquid collateral with minimal credit and market risk. In relation to OTC derivatives which are not subject to the clearing obligation, counterparties which are subject to EMIR will have to ensure that appropriate procedures and arrangements are in place to measure, monitor and mitigate operational and credit risk. For example, counterparties will have to confirm contracts in a timely fashion, set up reconciliation, dispute resolution and compression procedures, exchange collateral and mark contracts to market or model on a daily basis. In addition, all counterparties and CCPs will be required to report their transactions in derivatives to a registered or recognized trade repository or, where no trade repository has been authorized in connection with a particular class of derivatives, to the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”).

Certain Level 2 measures that will provide more detailed rules that give effect to EMIR have not yet been finalized. In addition, ESMA has not yet identified and approved the list of derivatives subject to the clearing obligation. The E.U. regulatory framework relating to derivatives is established not only by EMIR but also by the proposals to “recast” the existing Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (“MiFID II”) which have not been finalized. In particular, MiFID II is expected to require transactions in derivatives to be traded on a regulated market and centrally cleared. In this respect, it is difficult to predict the full impact of these regulatory developments on the Partnership. Prospective investors should be aware that the regulatory changes arising from EMIR and MiFID II may significantly raise the costs of entering into derivative contracts and may adversely affect the Partnership’s ability to engage in transactions in derivatives.

	Amount		Units	NAV
Jan-13	$	—	—	$	219.6744
Feb-13	—		—	227.3940
Mar-13	—		—	214.0573
Apr-13	—		—	219.7681
May-13	—		—	221.9490
Jun-13	—		—	226.4065
Jul-13	—		—	225.6605
Aug-13	—		—	222.4313
Sep-13	—		—	219.8696
Oct-13	—		—	213.3512
Nov-13	—		—	218.5052
Dec-13	—		—	226.1277
Jan-14	—		—	233.9835
Feb-14	16,000		72	220.9897

(1) Beginning of the month Net Asset Value

Item 5(b)

Not applicable.

Item 5(c)

Not applicable.

Item 6: Selected Financial Data

The following selected financial data has been derived from the audited financial statements of the Partnership.

Statements of Operations	For the Year Ended December 31, 2013			For the Year Ended December 31, 2012			For the Year Ended December 31, 2011			For the Year Ended December 31, 2010			For the Year Ended December 31, 2009

TRADING PROFIT (LOSS):
Realized	$	5,064,626		$	(18,809,252	)	$	12,292,987		$	(13,126,930	)	$	16,697,398
Change in unrealized	1,789,516			11,603			(5,988,458		)	1,981,160			(636,006		)
Total trading profit (loss)	$	6,854,142		(18,797,649		)	6,304,529			(11,145,770		)	16,061,392

INVESTMENT INCOME:
Interest	36,955			84,330			85,533			220,830			326,337

EXPENSES:
Wrap Fee	3,446,043			5,491,333			7,959,412			9,258,996			11,199,661
Profit Shares	—			—			—			—			2,137,349
Total expenses	3,446,043			5,491,333			7,959,412			9,258,996			13,337,010

NET INVESTMENT LOSS	(3,409,088		)	(5,407,003		)	(7,873,879		)	(9,038,166		)	(13,010,673		)

NET INCOME (LOSS)	$	3,445,054		$	(24,204,652	)	$	(1,569,350	)	$	(20,183,936	)	$	3,050,719

Balance Sheet Data	December 31, 2013		December 31, 2012		December 31, 2011		December 31, 2010		December 31, 2009

Partners’ Capital	$	47,358,483	$	67,504,251	$	119,304,071	$	150,455,350	$	192,965,299
Net Asset Value per Unit	$	233.9835	$	219.6744	$	284.1791	$	287.9143	$	320.4839

MLAI believes that the Net Asset Value used to calculate subscription and redemption value and report performance to investors is useful information for the limited partners of the Partnership.

MONTH-END NET ASSET VALUE PER INITIAL UNIT

	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.
2008	263.6769	286.4008	281.8904	275.7524	283.5640	289.4566	277.2528	269.6383	273.5805	305.7947	312.9660	314.1450
2009	309.5409	307.2376	298.0409	294.3268	302.0391	300.7773	307.6142	314.8120	315.6093	313.5396	326.4906	320.4839
2010	304.3271	301.2208	307.9271	306.4419	266.4390	262.7351	253.2554	256.1866	264.3506	279.5136	274.0284	287.9143
2011	288.6250	297.7954	293.7558	306.9529	288.3932	281.6155	281.2604	282.6780	299.4734	277.7507	283.8444	284.1791
2012	273.8266	272.7583	277.3155	273.4723	261.5746	240.2625	256.1229	245.2881	234.7385	223.6726	221.6742	219.6744
2013	227.3940	214.0573	219.7681	221.9490	226.4065	225.6605	222.4313	219.8696	213.3512	218.5052	226.1277	233.9835

ML SELECT FUTURES I L.P.

December 31, 2013

Type of Pool: Single Advisor/Publicly-Offered/Non-“Principal Protected”(1)

Inception of Trading: April 1996

Aggregate Subscriptions: $560,341,219

Current Capitalization: $47,358,483

Worst Monthly Drawdown(2): (14.94)% (August 2007)

Worst Peak-to-Valley Drawdown(3): (34.65)% (December 2009 — December 2013)

Net Asset Value per Unit, December 31, 2013: $233.9835

Monthly Rates of Return (4)

Month	2013		2012		2011		2010		2009
January	3.51	%	(3.64	)%	0.25	%	(5.04	)%	(1.47	)%
February	(5.87	)	(0.39	)	3.18		(1.02	)	(0.74	)
March	2.67		1.67		(1.36	)	2.23		(2.99	)
April	0.99		(1.39	)	4.49		(0.48	)	(1.24	)
May	2.01		(4.35	)	(6.05	)	(13.05	)	2.62
June	(0.33	)	(8.15	)	(2.35	)	(1.39	)	(0.42	)
July	(1.43	)	6.60		(0.13	)	(3.61	)	2.27
August	(1.15	)	(4.23	)	0.50		1.16		2.34
September	(2.96	)	(4.30	)	5.94		3.19		0.25
October	2.42		(4.71	)	(7.25	)	5.74		(0.66	)
November	3.49		(0.89	)	2.19		(1.96	)	4.13
December	3.47		(0.90	)	0.12		5.07		(1.84	)
Compound Annual Rate of Return	6.51	%	(22.70	)%	(1.30	)%	(10.16	)%	2.01	%

(1) Certain funds are structured so as to guarantee to investors that their investment will be worth no less than a specified amount (typically, the initial purchase price) as of a date certain after the date of investment. The CFTC refers to such funds as “principal protected”. The Partnership has no such feature.

(2) Worst Monthly Drawdown represents the largest negative Monthly Rate of Return experienced since January 1, 2003 by the Partnership; a drawdown is measured on the basis of month-end Net Asset Value only, and does not reflect intra-month figures.

(3) Worst Peak-to-Valley Drawdown represents the greatest percentage decline since January 1, 2003 from a month-end cumulative Monthly Rate of Return without such cumulative Monthly Rate of Return being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For example, if the Monthly Rate of Return was (1)% in each of January and February, 1% in March and (2)% in April, the Peak-to-Valley Drawdown would still be continuing at the end of April in the amount of approximately (3)%, whereas if the Monthly Rate of Return had been approximately 3% in March, the Peak-to-Valley Drawdown would have ended as of the end of February at approximately the (2)% level.

(4) Monthly Rate of Return is the net performance of the Partnership during the month of determination (including interest income and after all expenses have been accrued or paid) divided by the total equity of the Partnership as of the beginning of such month.

Item 7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Results of Operations

General

In the Trading Program, Sunrise applies its trend-following and related pattern recognition systems to a broadly-diversified portfolio of futures and forwards on underlying interests, including, but not limited to, precious and industrial metals, grains, petroleum products, soft commodities, U.S. and non-U.S. stock indices, currencies and their cross rates. Sunrise may trade these investments on any U.S. or non-U.S. exchange.

Performance Summary

This performance summary is an outline description of how the Partnership performed in the past, not necessarily any indication of how it will perform in the future. In addition, the general causes to which certain price movements are attributed may or may not have caused such movements, but simply occurred at or about the same time.

	Total Trading
Year ended December 31, 2013	Profit (Loss)
Energy	$	(1,974,070	)
Currencies	488,421
Agricultural Commodities	478,801
Interest Rates	(1,225,655		)
Stock Indices	7,191,876
Metals	1,894,769
	$	6,854,142

The Partnership experienced a net trading profit before brokerage commissions and related fees for the year ended December 31, 2013 of $6,854,142. Profits were primarily attributable to the Partnership trading in the stock indices, metals currencies and agriculture sector posting profits. The interest rates and energy sectors posted losses.

The stock indices posted profits to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter as investor confidence drove prices up across numerous markets traded. Leading the charge for the Trading Program were Japanese equities which continued their late 2012 run in the wake of continued efforts by the new government to stimulate its economy by weakening the Japanese yen. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. Trading in the U.S. markets generated small profits that were offset by losses in international equities in the face of Italian politics and other perceived indicators of global economic weakness. As a result, the Trading Program continued profitable trading of U.S. stock indices and trending S&P sub-sectors was outweighed by losses in both Europe and Asia for February. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter due to the surging U.S. stock markets. Large gains in the S&P, NASDAQ, Dow Jones and various U.S. equity sub-sectors generated the bulk of equity profits. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter resulting from the Trading Program’s long U.S. index trades as well as various S&P sub-sectors responsive to the ongoing U.S. stock market surge. Also, the Trading Program’s long equity positions in Japan, Taiwan and Sweden and a profitable short position in India resulted in profits. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter as U.S. and European equity markets climbed higher. Through the first two- thirds of May, the S&P, NASDAQ, DAX and EuroStoxx, among others, moved up. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter as stocks dropped in June. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. U.S. markets were profitable in July (long Dow, S&P and Nasdaq positions), as well as the Trading Program’s ongoing long positions in a wide range of S&P 500 sectors, including healthcare, consumer discretionary and consumer staples. Global equity markets lagged the United States but small profits in Asian and European markets rounded out the Trading Program’s profitable July of equity investing. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of third quarter. A variety of factors appeared to knock U.S equities off their bullish stride including some poor real estate numbers in the early part of August and then late August uncertainty regarding potential U.S. involvement in Syria. The net result for the Partnership were losses in the S&P and Dow Jones index futures markets as well as in the health care, consumer staples, industrial, technology, utilities, consumer discretionary, and financial sub-sectors of the S&P. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter as stock markets rallied almost uniformly around the globe and the Trading Program captured the move. As it has for much of the

year, the U.S. set the equity pace in October with the NASDAQ and S&P moving strongly upward once the government shutdown was resolved. Adding to the Trading Program’s equity profits were gains in the Italian, European, and German stock indices as well as profits in various Asian markets. Profits were posted to the Fund in the middle of the quarter where the 2013 bull market continued to run upward in November. Leading the charge were China H-shares and the S&P which surged on positive economic indicators as November came to a close. Also, the NASDAQ, Japan’s Nikkei and Germany’s DAX, all added profits from an equity index standpoint. Profits were posted to the Fund at the end of the fourth quarter. Due to ongoing long positions as well as some timely intra-month shorting, the equities sector delivered strong performance in December. As was often the case in 2013, the U.S. drove profits with the Dow Jones, S&P, and NASDAQ markets all posting positive returns for December. Globally, various European and Japanese markets contributed returns as well and collectively with the strong U.S. results, they overshadowed December losses incurred in the Chinese, Italian and South African equity markets.

The metals sector posted profits to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter as gold and copper pushed upward against the Trading Program’s short positions. Also challenging was the zinc market, wherein the Trading Program entered into a long position only to sharply reverse resulting in losses posted to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter with zinc losses offsetting gains in gold and copper. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter as the Trading Program’s short copper and gold positions continued to track ongoing reversals in each of those markets and offset a small loss incurred on a long zinc trade. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter as copper and gold continued their 2013 price free fall in line with the Trading Program’s short positions in each market. Adding to profits was a short silver position toward the end of April. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. The metals sector diverged during May, with base metals, aluminum and copper, losing money in their short positions. Precious metals, gold and silver, conversely profited from short positions with gold and silver prices dropping during May. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. The Trading Program short position benefitted from Gold’s mid June drop. Also short positions in copper, nickel, aluminum and silver posted profits for the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter when collapsing metal prices took a bit of a respite. Most harmful to the Trading Program was a price rally in gold and copper. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as the downward trend that has prevailed for much of 2013 stalled and then reversed course for much of August. Losses across the board against the Trading Program’s short positions in silver, aluminum, gold, and copper drove unprofitable trading with nickel being the only metals market from which the Trading Program emerged unscathed. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. No news was good news for the Partnership in metals as a relatively low volatility environment kept the Trading Program largely inactive for October and out of any trouble that might have undercut the profits generated in other sectors. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter due to the Trading Program’s sizable profits with its short positions against global metals markets. Tumbling prices in the copper markets led the way for the Trading Program’s profitable November in metals with gold closely following suit. Also adding meaningful returns were the silver, zinc and platinum markets, all of which moved downward in November in congruence with copper and gold. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter The Trading Program ended the year by giving back some of the profits it had earned in the metals sector in previous months. While the Trading Program remained short across the entire metals spectrum, prices in nearly every metals market spiked upward at points in December leading to losses in aluminum, copper, nickel and platinum.

The currency sector posted profits to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. The sharp downward move in the Japanese yen that began late 2012 accelerated in January and led to profit taking by the Trading Program. Complementing the Japanese yen’s productive move was an upward surge in the euro and European minor currencies. Profits were also found shorting the South African rand which continued a downward trend and further bolstered the Trading Program’s January performance in currency. These trading gains were sufficient to offset losses suffered when the Swiss franc and Australian dollar moved against the Trading Program’s long positions and the British pound spiked upward against the Trading Program’s short position. Losses in the euro, Swiss franc, Australian dollar and a range of minor European currencies outweighed gains in the British pound, Japanese yen, and South African rand resulting in losses posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter. March began with the Trading Program’s short euro trade causing a loss, which was offset by winning short positions in the Japanese yen, Swiss franc and South African rand. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. Currency trading was essentially flat for April as profitable trades such as long positions in the euro and Swiss franc and short positions in the Japanese yen were offset by long positions in the Australian dollar and short positions in the British pound and South African rand. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. The Trading Program’s short trades in the Australian dollar made money as it declined amid numbers out of China that pointed to a slowing economy and the prospect of softening demand for Australian commodities. The Trading Program short Japanese yen plays against the U.S. dollar, British pound and Euro were all profitable. The South African rand

weakening against the U.S. dollar benefitted the Trading Program. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. Profits from the Trading Program’s Australian dollar and buying British pounds and Euros were not enough to offset losses incurred shorting the Japanese yen, Singapore dollar, New Zealand dollar, and South African rand. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter as the British pound (long), Japanese yen (short), and New Zealand dollar (short) all moved against the Trading Program. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as the Trading Program captured profits in short Australian dollar and Japanese yen positions. Long Swiss franc and short New Zealand and Singapore dollar positions also generated profits. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Most damaging was the Australian dollar which spiked upward sharply against the Trading Program’s short position such that it turned many of the models to the long side by month end. Compounding the harm were losses in the Singapore dollar, South African rand, New Zealand dollar, and Japanese yen, all of which strengthened against the U.S. dollar upon the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision not to taper quantitative easing. However, the British pound and Euro moved upward in support of the Trading Program’s long positions in those markets and mitigated some losses. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. No news was good news for the Partnership in currencies as a relatively low volatility environment kept the Trading Program largely inactive for October and out of any trouble that might have undercut the profits generated in other sectors. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter as the Japanese yen’s accelerating weakness meshed well with the short positions the Trading Program favored for much of 2013. Adding to the Trading Program’s profits shorting the yen were positive returns being long the Australian dollar and British pound Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter. Leading the way for December was the Japanese yen which continued to track sharply downward in synchronization with the Trading Program’s longer and shorter duration short positions. Conversely, the Trading Program benefitted from an upward turn in the British pound. Additional profits were long the Swiss franc, and short the Australian dollar and euro.

The agriculture sector posted profits to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter in which sugar prices spiraled downward in support of the Trading Program’s short position. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of through the end of the first quarter due to the Trading Program’s short positions in sugar and coffee. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter resulting from the Trading Program’s long positions in cotton and short positions in soy meal and wheat. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter resulting from the Trading Program’s short positions in grains and softs. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter resulting from the Trading Program’s short position in wheat. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter as falling corn, soybean and soymeal prices made for good trading opportunities, particularly for some of the Trading Program’s shorter term investment models. Wheat and rubber generated small losses which were overshadowed by the Trading Program’s gains in corn and the soybean complex. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter in spite of the Trading Program’s challenging trading days in several grain markets. The most profitable trades were short wheat and sugar, which collectively offset losses in soybeans for August. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Wheat and sugar prices spiked upward against the Trading Program’s short positions. Also soybeans and soymeal prices moved lower against the Trading Program’s long positions. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. The Trading Program’s long soybean and short corn and coffee positions all had profits for October. Gains in these three markets offset small losses in sugar and wheat. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter as corn and wheat prices fell in line with the Trading Program’s short positions and soymeal prices rose in conjunction with the Trading Program’s long positions. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter. The Trading Program was short in the wheat markets as prices in that grain dropped over December as slight additions to wheat profits were found in sugar and corn.

The interest rate sector posted losses to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. In particular, the U.S. and European interest rates moved downward against the Trading Program’s short bond positions. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter due to small losses in European interest rates. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter due to the Trading Program’s long bond/short interest rate positions across Europe and in Japan and long T- note/short rate positions in the U.S. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. Fixed income trading was profitable April as long bond/short rate positions in both Germany and across the U.S. yield curve all turned profits posted to the Partnership which offset losses on the Trading Program’s long bond/short rate position in Japan. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. The interest rate sector lost money across the board, appearing to be principally driven by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s comments that the Federal Reserve may reduce its bond purchasing program given recent signs of an improving economy. Markets reacted strongly to this, with the yield on the U.S. ten year treasury note. This material move caused the Trading Program to exit its long positions held at the beginning of the month and go short U.S. treasuries across the yield curve. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. The Trading Program captured profits with short positions across the U.S. yield curve and Canada. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. Fixed income markets, after offering some good shorting opportunities early in July, settled

into a fairly indecisive pattern that ultimately led to small Trading Program losses for the month. The least helpful markets were in Europe where bobl and bund futures turned against the Trading Program’s short positions. The Trading Program’s ongoing short positions along the U.S. yield curve garnered nearly offsetting profits as U.S. bonds continue to lose value. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter from the Trading Program’s short positions in the global bond market. The Trading Program’s short positions in the back end of the curve in the United States, Canada and Europe proved profitable. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter as the downward move in bond prices and corresponding uptick in interest rates that had characterized the previous several months reversed course sharply upon the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to maintain its current level of quantitative easing. Also corresponding losses in Europe’s bund market added to the losses at the end of September. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter. In the bond markets, the Trading Program was essentially flat for November as there was little price action in any of the global markets the Partnership trades in and a limited book of existing positions, a mix of longs and shorts, largely held steady for November. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter as interest rates started to creep upward on the U.S. Federal Reserve’s tapering indication and drove bond prices into a downward move. While not all markets were as responsive to the U. S. Federal Reserve’s tapering indication as others, profits resulted from short positions in the German bund market and on longer term segments of the U.S. yield curve. These profits were sufficient to outweigh losses in the European BOBL market.

The energy sector posted losses to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. Most notably, crude oil spiked sharply yielding profits for the Trading Program. Supplementing these profits were favorable trades in heating oil, and various gasoline markets. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. Strong upward trends and seemingly orderly pullbacks were disrupted by unpredicted price turmoil when an unidentified investor sold large quantities of crude oil futures within a very short time window toward the end of February. This occurrence reduced prices below the Trading Program’s risk tolerances and forced the Trading Program out of trading positions that otherwise appeared on track to produce positive returns. The Trading Program also generated losses in unleaded gas, gas oil, heating oil and Brent crude. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter as the Trading Program’s long natural gas trade toward the end of March generated gains to offset losses realized by shorting the same market in early March. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter resulting from the downward price movement that persisted for much of the year in oil and gas products stalled and reversed just enough to undercut many of the Trading Program’s short positions. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. Volatility in natural gas led to losses that tipped the sector into negative territory in May. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter resulting from price fall-offs in RBOB gasoline, gasoil and Brent crude. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. The energy sector was neutral for the month of July as small profits buying Brent crude, crude and gasoil and selling natural gas were offset by small losses in the heating oil and RBOB markets. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as the Trading Program profited from the long positions that captured sharp price spikes in the Brent and crude oil markets. The gains in these trades outpaced small losses in natural gas and heating oil. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. After the prospect of military action in Syria seemed to subside, energy prices, which had risen due to the possibility of conflict in the Middle East, sold off across the board. Gas and crude oil proved to be particularly troublesome and heating oil, Brent crude, RBOB and even natural gas added to the Trading Program’s negative performance in energy for September. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. No news was good news for the Partnership in energy as a relatively low volatility environment kept the Trading Program largely inactive for October and out of any trouble that might have undercut the profits generated in other sectors. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter. The volatility patterns that characterized 2013 continued in November when upward price moves in natural gas and Brent crude suddenly bucked the Trading Program’s short positions and caused additional losses in energies. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter. After a year in which opportunities in the sector were far and few between, energies delivered positive returns for December. Most of the profit came from various long trades in natural gas which spiked significantly during December as an early winter enveloped much of the U.S. Adding to the month’s results were profitable long positions in the crude oil market.

	Total Trading
Year ended December 31, 2012	Profit (Loss)
Energy	$	(7,245,645	)
Currencies	(5,617,315		)
Agricultural Commodities	1,495,278
Interest Rates	(1,118,065		)
Stock Indices	(1,109,736		)
Metals	(5,202,166		)
	$	(18,797,649	)

The Partnership experienced a net trading loss of $18,797,649 for the year ended December 2012. Profits were primarily attributable to the Partnership trading in the agriculture sector posting profits. The stock indices, interest rates, metals, currency and energy sectors posted losses.

The agriculture sector posted profits to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter as the winter’s unusually warm climate across much of the country disrupted the seasonal trading patterns, ultimately causing prices to drop further. Trading in coffee was profitable as the coffee prices continued to decline on expectations of a record crop in Brazil, the world’s largest producer. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter as coffee prices ended the month of February lower, in favor of short positions which were driven by its own, weather related fundamentals. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter. The coffee market remained in a downward trend, which contributed to profits. Since hitting a near record high price in 2011, coffee prices fell on expectations of a large Brazilian crop, the world’s largest coffee producer. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. The Soybean complex markets exhibited the strongest trends and were the most profitable agricultural markets as prices moved steadily higher. This trend appeared to be partly in reaction to the shortage of soybeans available for export from South America. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. Losses were incurred in the soybean market as prices turned lower after rallying for months. Improved weather forecasts for U.S. crops and prospects of slowing Chinese demand seemed to be the contributing factors behind the price correction. The corn market also experienced significant price swings causing the Trading Program to be whipsawed in and out of short trades. On the positive side, trading in cotton and sugar was profitable due to strong downtrends in both markets. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. Grains and softs produced mixed results, with short positions in corn and sugar reversing in trend quickly resulting in modest losses. The ability to go long and short proved its worth again with profitable positions in short rubber and long soybean meal. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. Soybeans and soymeal accounted for the bulk of the profits as prices advanced. Corn and wheat also contributed to gains through newly established long positions. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter. As drought continued across the U.S., upward price trends in soybeans and soymeal generated profits. Also contributing was the Trading Program’s short position in the Tokyo rubber market which continued its downward trend, while cotton and wheat positions generated small losses. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Struggles in the agricultural sector was a fairly sharp price uptick in the rubber market that eroded some of the gains made in previous months; however, short cotton position was profitable for the month but was not enough to offset losses. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter as the price effects of the summer drought continued to wane in October. The several-month rally in the soybean complex appeared to end as the Trading Program was knocked out of its remaining long positions by mid-October and the wheat market followed a similar path. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter only to be reversed at the end of the fourth quarter. Most damaging were sharp reversals in corn and wheat, both of which caused the Trading Program to be entirely knocked out of long positions.

The stock indices sector posted losses to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. After 2011’s wild swings, equity markets had a strong start to the new year and moved steadily higher. Positive data from the U.S., China and even Europe helped drive stock prices higher. The Trading Program exited all of its remaining short trades and initiated new long positions in both domestic and foreign equity markets. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. A two month rally, driven in large part by an improving U.S. economic outlook and a stabilizing European debt situation, ultimately challenged the technically (and psychologically) important 13,000 level. Among the equity positions, the NASDAQ was the best performing market for the Trading Program’s strategy. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter. The U.S. equity markets continued to trend in March, moving up without a meaningful retracement. An improving U.S. economy combined with an increase in investor confidence and signs of stabilization in Europe appeared to influence this rally. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. Domestic equities initially retreated from their 2012 highs, but began to bounce back during the second

half of April. European equities, on the other hand, continued to weaken, diverging from the path of U.S. equity markets. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. Performance was affected by a shift away from risky assets, including equities into safe haven assets, such as government bonds and the U.S. dollar. Worries about Europe emerged again, including a potential Greek exit from the Euro. Attention returned to soft U.S. economic data and slowing growth in China. In this context, global equity markets were down across the board. The uncertainty surrounding Greece’s future in the Euro zone and worries of an expanding crisis turned the global equity market into a downfall. The Trading Program was stopped out of its remaining long positions and generated negative performance. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. Towards the end of June the decision in Brussels to allow European bailout funds to directly help crisis-stricken banks was seen by many as a key measure to supporting beleaguered Spanish banks. The backing of the German parliament, by passing the euro zone permanent bailout scheme and budget by a wide margin, appeared to give markets additional confidence in the plan. This news was a shot in the arm to the global economy, causing equity markets to rally sharply on the last trading day of June in contrast to the pattern they had shown in the preceding several weeks. Long U.S. equities positions held at the beginning of June were flattened out for modest losses. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. Positions in equity indices were limited, due to lack of defined trends as well as short-selling bans imposed by European regulators. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as trading in equities was unprofitable as markets reversed. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Profits were generated in equities as stock markets across the globe generally approached new highs on news of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s ongoing commitment to simulative fiscal policies. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter due to choppy U.S. stock index futures. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter due to the Trading Program’s positions in the Asian and European stock markets, on both longer term upward trends and some shorter term price pullbacks. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter due to the Trading Program’s geographic diversification in Japan, the Netherlands, Korea, Spain and Italy.

The interest rate sector posted losses to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. Following the U.S. Federal Reserve’s announcement, interest rate futures rallied, pushing yields lower. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle through the end of the first quarter. During the first half of March, U.S. interest rates moved higher. This rate rise triggered a liquidation of the Trading Program’s remaining exposure in domestic interest rate futures, which caused negative performance. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. Yields declined after the first quarter optimism changed to anxiety about future economic growth. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. The concerns about Europe drove investors into perceived safe havens of U.S. and German bonds, with yields declining. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. Long interest rate positions in the U.S., Europe and Asia maintained their established trends while also posting small losses. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. Yields declined after the first quarter optimism changed to anxiety about future economic growth. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Long interest rate positions in the U.S., Europe and Asia maintained their established trends while also posting small losses. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning through the middle of the fourth quarter. The Trading Program’s profits from their long Japanese bond positions were offset by losses in the long European bond market. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter. Small losses by the Trading Program across the U.S. yield curve and in Japanese and Canadian bond markets combined to cause a monthly loss in the sector overall.

The metals sector posted losses to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. The Partnership liquidated a substantial portion of short positions in metals as prices bounced back from their December lows. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle through the end of the first quarter due to volatility in the market. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. The metals sector was profitable due to gains from short positions in base metals. Small losses were incurred in gold. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. In the metals sector, aluminum was a bright spot, where the Trading Program was able to capitalize on a newly established short position however was not enough to offset the losses posted to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. Short positions in base metals were profitable with the biggest decliners being aluminum and nickel. Fear of a global slowdown, spurred by debt fears in Europe and the specter of a hard landing in China, appeared to cause demand to drop off. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter. Profitable trends in the global metals markets retraced in August causing the Trading Program to give back some of the profits it had made shorting these markets over the past several months. In particular, silver and aluminum both rallied, while positions in copper, nickel and zinc finished essentially flat. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter as downward price trends that had been building throughout the summer sharply reversed in early September, with aluminum and nickel markets generating the largest losses. Industrial metals appeared to rally on news of ongoing stimulus measures made by the U.S. and China. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter due to sharp reversals in zinc and aluminum. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter only to be reversed at the end of the fourth quarter. A

sharp price drop in gold in the middle of December triggered a short position that was profitable until the end of the month when prices reversed sharply and forced the Trading Program to liquidate.

The currency sector posted losses to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter as the U.S. dollar reversed course over the second half of January and weakened across the board. The Euro initially touched a 16-month low against the U.S. dollar and then climbed back above $1.30. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. The currency sector suffered from price reversals against established market trends, particularly in the Euro and the Japanese yen. The Euro staged a rally as optimism about Greece sent the currency to a three month high against the U.S. dollar and the Euro trades were partially liquidated as a result. The Japanese yen fell against the U.S. dollar after the Bank of Japan injected more money into the economy, applying downward pressure on the Japanese yen. Consequently, the Partnership was stopped out of all of its long Japanese yen positions. The Partnership also liquidated most of the short positions in minor currencies as they moved higher against the U.S. dollar. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter. The U.S. dollar initially benefited from higher yields and gained against other currencies; however, the U.S. dollar came under pressure during the second half of March. The Partnership maintained a very low exposure in the currency sector during March due to a lack of any sustained trends. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. The U.S. dollar moved sideways, trading in a relatively narrow range. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. In the face of the recent European crisis, selling the Euro was the theme of May. The Euro fell to a 2-year low against the U.S. dollar. Minor currencies also weakened, contributing to profits. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. The U.S. dollar and treasuries, recipients of significant inflows in light of the crisis in Europe, saw sharp drops at month end as investors showed more confidence that Europe could avoid fiscal collapse. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. Currencies were profitable with short positions in the Euro and Swiss Franc against the U.S. dollar performing the best. Questions about the health of the Eurozone and whether or not Greece will exit continued to play a likely role in pushing the common currency down. The Trading Program’s short positions in minor currencies against the U.S. dollar were slightly profitable. Several profitable cross rate trades also added to the currency sector’s overall strong performance. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter. The Euro and Swiss franc strengthened against the U.S. dollar after their July weakness and a variety of European minor currencies also followed suit, further harming performance. The Trading Program’s short Euro/Sterling and long Sterling/Swiss franc positions also posted small losses. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. The upward move of the Euro currency that began in August continued in September causing further losses for the Partnership, resulting in the Trading Program taking out its position entirely. The Swiss franc followed the euro, generating losses and causing the Trading Program to reduce its position over the course of September. Currencies continued their perplexing 2012 trajectory as October saw weakness in markets that were strong the month before (British pound) and strength in markets that were weak in previous months (Swiss franc) and both currencies caused small losses posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter due to profits from the South African rand, the Brazilian real, and the Japanese yen. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter due to the Trading Program’s positions in the South African rand, New Zealand dollar, Australian dollar and Brazilian real.

The energy sector posted losses to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. Short natural gas positions posted profits in January. Overall, the boom in low-cost natural gas from shale suppressed prices. In addition, the market appeared to be anticipating storage cost increases on the horizon as stored inventories continued to build. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. Energy prices rallied as tensions with Iran raised fears about a possible supply disruption and/or military conflict. The Iran situation had a more pronounced impact on Brent crude as compared to West Texas Intermediate, because the Eurozone is one of Iran’s biggest markets for its oil. The price of U.S. oil lagged behind that of Brent crude, which rose above $125 per barrel in February while West Texas Intermediate stayed below the $110 level. Towards the end of February energy prices retreated by more than which caused the sector to finish the month with a minor loss. Nevertheless, rising oil prices seem to be a key fundamental risk factor for the global economy. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter. Gasoil and Unleaded Gas (RBOB) finished March higher and generated profits, while Brent crude traded sideways and posted only marginal gains. Trading in natural gas was also profitable. The market had been oversupplied and prices continued to weaken. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. Gasoline and oil prices declined as tensions appeared to ease over Iran’s nuclear program, generating losses in long positions. Natural gas resumed its downtrend at first, then suddenly moved higher on apparent weather related demand and finished flat for April. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. With the worsening situation in Europe and the slowdown in Chinese manufacturing sector oil prices came under pressure. Short natural gas, the Trading Program’s only remaining energy position, ended May flat. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. Short positions established in Brent crude, West Texas Intermediate crude and heating oil in the early part of June gradually gained until giving back all gains and more at the end of June. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. The energy

sector was mixed with the Trading Program’s short positions being exited in West Texas Intermediate crude, Brent crude and heating oil at modest losses. After exiting a short position built on a multi-year decline in the price of natural gas, the Trading Program’s long position proved to be profitable as prices jumped over 60 percent from the lows touched in April. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter. The natural gas market reversed direction after a sharp rally over the past several months, and undercut the Trading Program’s long position. The drivers behind this price reversal were not clear, as the demand for natural gas was strong across the U.S. and production subsided as a result of hurricane Isaac. Regardless, the market forces that had driven natural gas to near 12-month highs clearly lost influence in August. The Trading Program’s small gains in Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for Oxygen Blending gasoline were insufficient to offset losses in natural gas. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. The Trading Program’s positions remained light with the exception of long positions in natural gas and RBOB unleaded gasoline. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. After a strong rally toward the end of the third quarter, unleaded gas reversed sharply in late October causing losses and knocking the Trading Program entirely out of what had been a fairly sizeable position coming into the month. Driving this change in price direction appeared to be a sudden spike of investor pessimism in the wake of various unfavorable global economic projections. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter as natural gas, heating oil, gas oil and Brent crude oil all contributed to a net loss for November. Natural gas’ upward price trend reversed by the middle of November. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter due to the natural gas market which sharply reversed, and also losses in heating oil and gasoil.

December 31, 2011

	Total Trading
Year ended December 31, 2011	Profit (Loss)
Energy	$	5,625,300
Currencies	(514,747		)
Agricultural Commodities	(2,135,384		)
Interest Rates	930,413
Stock Indices	(3,104,805		)
Metals	5,503,752
	$	6,304,529

The Partnership experienced a net profit of $6,304,529 for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Partnership’s profits were primarily attributable to the energy, metals and interest rate sectors posting profits. The currencies, agriculture and stock indices sectors posted losses.

The energy sector posted profits to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. Worries about possible supply disruptions triggered considerable price movements in the energy market and helped Brent Crude oil prices break through the $100/barrel resistance level. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. Political chaos in oil producing countries of the Middle East and North Africa injected new volatility into the market and raised new risks for the global economy. Oil prices shot higher as disruptions in crude oil production took a large amount of oil off the world market. The Brent crude contract for nearby delivery surpassed $110 per barrel. The first quarter ended with profits posted to the Partnership. Developments in Libya followed by a devastating earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan provided unexpected shocks to the markets in March and triggered high levels of price volatility and economic uncertainty. Markets somewhat stabilized during the second half of March and energies resumed their upward trend. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter as positive performance resulted from long positions in energies. The rise in oil prices seemed to be driven by lingering concerns about supply disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa along with the weakening U.S. dollar. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. The Trading Program liquidated a large amount of their remaining energy exposure during the first half of May. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter as energies extended their decline further into June and the Trading Program liquidated a few remaining energy trades. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning through the middle of the third quarter due to a quick decline in oil prices. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter as steep declines in commodity markets translated into profitable performance for the Partnership’s energy positions. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. In the energy sectors prices rose during the month of October and led either to liquidation or reduction of the Trading Program’s short positions. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle through the end of the fourth quarter as the Partnership’s position sizes were reduced during this period so as to lessen the impact of volatile price movements.

The metals sector posted profits to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. Precious metals experienced significant price retracements in January. Gold fell $100 off the high it posted at the beginning of the month which led to the liquidation of most of the Partnership’s gold positions. The Trading Program’s silver trade was also closed out in January, posting realized profits overall which was not enough to offset losses. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. Precious metals seemed to be benefiting from higher levels of geopolitical risk. Gold resumed its upward momentum and pushed through $1400 an ounce. The silver price touched an all time high in February above $33 and ounce. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter. Developments in Libya followed by a devastating earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan provided unexpected shocks to the markets in March and triggered high levels of price volatility and economic uncertainty. Most equity markets initially moved lower, reversing the trends of previous months. Metals suffered pullbacks as they focused on potentially major economic consequences of these events. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter as record levels were recorded in the precious metals sector. Gold futures broke through $1500 an ounce, silver prices soared to new 31 year highs and approached $50 a troy ounce. Both metals seemed to be well supported by a weaker U.S. dollar and rising inflationary fears. The Trading Program’s exposure to precious metals was reduced on profit taking. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter as silver suffered a substantial decline as its price fell from April highs of nearly $50 a troy ounce down to as low as $32. Fortunately, the Trading Program’s silver positions had been scaled back considerably prior to the May downturn and as a result, the Trading Program was able to liquidate the overall profitable trade with only a marginal loss for the month. Gold also retreated from record highs, but held up better than silver as prices bounced back later in the month. The Trading Program remained long gold positions throughout the month of May. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter due to the uncertain economic environment in developed economies which seemed to be a driving force behind the June volatility. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter as the price of gold reached new record highs. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as gold was the biggest beneficiary of the financial system turmoil. Prices reached new record highs and despite a significant mid-month pullback the market eventually turned upward and resumed its trend. Profits continued to be posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Steep declines in commodity markets translated into profitable performance for the Trading Program’s base metals. Many of these trades were initiated in September when prices fell through important technical levels. Copper was the best performing market. The drop in copper prices was also significant from the fundamental perspective because the metal is considered a good indicator of global economic growth. Meanwhile, gold futures posted losses for the month. Despite the fact that gold enjoyed a special status as a safe haven from financial crisis and trended higher for much of 2011, the market suddenly switched direction and fell along with other assets. A large portion of the Trading Program’s long gold positions had already been liquidated on profit taking prior to September, with the balance stopped out while still profitable. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter as prices rose during the month of October and led either to liquidation or reduction of the Trading Program’s short positions. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter. The Trading Program entered the month of November well positioned to benefit from a decline in industrial metals. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter as the Trading Program initiated a small short position in gold and increased its short silver exposure in December.

The interest rate sector posted profits to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. The interest rate sector was trading in a relatively tight range. Small profits were recorded in European short-term instruments on rising expectations for an interest rate increase in the Eurozone. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter only to be reversed at the end of the quarter. Developments in Libya followed by a devastating earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan provided unexpected shocks to the markets in March and triggered high levels of price volatility and economic uncertainty. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter. Trading in interest rate futures generated negative results after prices turned against the Trading Program’s short positions. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter. The interest rate futures staged a rally in May, driving yields to the lowest point of the year and causing most of the Trading Program’s modest short trades to be stopped out with a loss. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter. In June, the price behavior alternated between positive and negative risk sentiment based on encouraging or disappointing signals on Greece, the outlook for economic growth and the debt ceiling debate in the U.S. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter as the interest rate sector was basically flat as profits from the U.S. market were offset by losses in European markets. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as yields fell to historic lows and prices rallied as the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to keep interest rates near zero through 2013. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. The U.S. Federal Reserve announced its economic stimulus plan to sell short dated instruments and buy an equal amount of longer dated U.S. Treasury bonds, which sent the yield on longer term bonds to record lows. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Solid profits generated by the Trading Program in September were completely relinquished during the highly volatile October. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter as trading in interest rates was slightly unprofitable. European bond yields

moved higher, against the trading progam’s positions. Domestically, short-term rates initially went up, and then dropped at the end of the month as a result of coordinated action by six central banks to help troubled European banks secure short-term funding. The move erased earlier gains in the Trading Program’s short Eurodollar positions. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter. European events also dominated the bond market. U.S. government bonds became more attractive as the outlook for Europe worsened. Buying interest drove prices higher and yields lower. Yields on the ten year note fell below 2%. Despite the dramatic expansion of our national debt and the loss of triple A credit rating, U.S. government instruments seem to be maintaining their status as a safe harbor investment.

The currency sector posted losses to the Partnership. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. The year started with a substantial price correction in high yielding currencies, in particular, the South African rand. The South African rand currency fell against the U.S. dollar which caused losses for the Trading Program. The British pound moved higher against the Trading Program’s positions and also contributed to the losses. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. The U.S. dollar initially strengthened, but came under pressure against most major and minor currencies during the second half of February. Small profits from the Trading Program’s short positions in the U.S. dollar trades against minor currencies were offset by losses from major currency cross rates. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the quarter. The Japanese yen experienced some wild swings in value, but eventually moved lower against the U.S. dollar and other currencies, possibly a result of coordinated intervention by the central banks. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter as the U.S. dollar declined versus most major and minor currencies. The U.S. dollar hit new record lows against the Swiss franc and the Australian dollar. Several factors seemed to be conspiring against the U.S. currency. They included the widening of interest rate differentials in favor of other currencies as well as concerns over fiscal policy in the U.S. During the month of April, the Trading Program increased its exposure to the downtrend in the U.S. dollar versus the South African rand, New Zealand dollar and Polish zloty, while taking profits on existing short U.S. dollar positions versus the Australian dollar, Swedish krona and Singapore dollar. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the second quarter as worries that Greece may soon default on its debts helped push the U.S. dollar higher against the Euro. Most major and minor currencies also seemed to be trading down against the U.S. dollar, generating losses for the Trading Program. The Swiss franc was the best performer. Solid performance of Switzerland’s economy most likely contributed to the currency’s strength. The quarter ended with profits posted to the Partnership due to profits from the Swiss franc and the Euro as they both gained against other major currencies. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter as the U.S. dollar declined versus most major and minor currencies. The U.S. dollar hit new record lows against the Swiss franc and the Australian dollar. Several factors seemed to be conspiring against the U.S. currency. They included the widening of interest rate differentials in favor of other currencies as well as concerns over fiscal policy in the U.S. During the month of April, the Trading Program increased its exposure to the downtrend in the U.S. dollar versus the South African rand, New Zealand dollar and Polish zloty, while taking profits on existing short U.S. dollar positions versus the Australian dollar, Swedish krona and Singapore dollar. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as worries that Greece may soon default on its debts helped push the U.S. dollar higher against the Euro. Most major and minor currencies also seemed to be trading down against the U.S. dollar, generating losses for the Trading Program. The Swiss franc was the best performer. Solid performance of Switzerland’s economy most likely contributed to the currency’s strength. The third quarter ended with profits posted to the Partnership due to profits from the Swiss franc and the Euro as they both gained against other major currencies. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. The U.S. dollar weakened across the board. The Japanese yen rose to a new record high against the U.S. dollar, which prompted the Bank of Japan’s intervention to weaken their currency. The Euro currency surged on hopes that Europe is heading toward a solution to its debt crisis. These price movements negatively impacted the Trading Program and triggered partial liquidation of long U.S. dollar and long Japanese yen positions. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter. The U.S. dollar rose relative to the euro and some other major and minor currencies. Given Europe’s persistent problems, the U.S. currency seemed to have a comparative advantage and apparently attracted buyers as a safer choice.

The agriculture sector posted losses to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. Price action in the agricultural sector was relatively subdued and produced marginal profits. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter only to be reversed at the end of the quarter. Developments in Libya followed by a devastating earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan provided unexpected shocks to the markets in March and triggered high levels of price volatility and economic uncertainty. Agricultural commodities suffered pullbacks as they focused on potentially major economic consequences of these events. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the second quarter only to be reversed in the middle of the quarter. In May markets endured a choppy month after prices turned against the established trends, negatively impacting the Trading Program’s performance. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the second quarter as wheat was the best performer for the month but not enough to offset losses. Markets seemed to reflect the loss of momentum in the U.S. economy and renewed concerns about the European debt crisis. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter. Cotton prices dropped

dramatically in July, which benefited the Trading Program’s short positions. Perceptions of higher crops were among the factors behind the falling prices. Trading in agricultural commodities was negative except for the corn market. Corn futures soared on weather concerns and produced profits which were not enough to offset losses posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter. Steep declines in commodity markets translated into profitable performance for the Trading Program’s grains positions. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter as solid profits generated by the Trading Program in September were completely relinquished during the highly volatile October. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter as the Trading Program entered the month well positioned to benefit from a decline in agricultural. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter as the agricultural commodities experienced an upward price correction during the second half of the month of December which caused some losses in the Trading Program’s short positions.

The stock indices posted losses to the Partnership. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the first quarter. Profits in equity markets appeared to be driven by a more optimistic view on economic growth. Profits were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the first quarter. The situation in the Middle East and North Africa prompted a large correction in the global equity market after the rally of the past few months. Despite the price correction, profits were posted to the Partnership due to the Trading Program’s long U.S. and European stock index futures. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the first quarter. Developments in Libya followed by a devastating earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan provided unexpected shocks to the markets in March and triggered high levels of price volatility and economic uncertainty. Most equity markets initially moved lower, reversing the trends of previous months. Profits were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the third quarter as trading in the equity sector generated profits. Domestic stocks advanced to multiyear highs in response to encouraging corporate earnings and prospects of low interest rates. As global equities moved higher, the Trading Program increased its exposure to the sector. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the third quarter as the Trading Program began unwinding long trades in equities. Losses continued to be posted to the Partnership at the end of the third quarter as equities extended their decline further into June. As a result the Trading Program reduced its equity exposure to 1% of the total portfolio risk. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Equities broke out of their volatile trading range and rapidly moved higher. This price action was largely a function of European events and encouraging news about the U.S. economy, which grew in the 3rd quarter, might have also supported the rally. The Trading Program was stopped out of all their short equity trades in both domestic and foreign markets. Losses were posted to the Partnership in the middle of the fourth quarter. During the month of November global equities appeared to be driven down by persistent bad news out of Europe. Policy failures in the U.S. to reduce the country’s budget deficit also seemed to contribute to negative sentiment. The Trading Program maintained light exposure in Asian equities, but stayed neutral in European and U.S. stock index futures. Losses were posted to the Partnership at the end of the fourth quarter as the Partnership stayed largely neutral in domestic and European equities.

Variables Affecting Performance

The principal variables that determine the net performance of the Partnership are gross profitability from the Partnership’s trading activities and interest income.

The Partnership receives an interest based on the daily effective federal funds rate less 20 basis points on their U.S. dollar deposits. Other rates exist for the non U.S. dollar deposits, however, most of the Partnership’s cash is held in U.S. dollars. The current short term interest rates have remained extremely low when compared with historical rates and thus has contributed negligible amounts to overall Partnership performance.

During all periods set forth above in “Selected Financial Data”, the interest rates in many countries were at unusually low levels. In addition, low interest rates are frequently associated with reduced fixed income market volatility, and in static markets the Partnership’s profit potential generally tends to be diminished. On the other hand, during periods of higher interest rates, the relative attractiveness of a high risk investment such as the Partnership may be reduced as compared to high yielding and much lower risk fixed-income investments.

The Partnership’s brokerage commissions and administrative fees are a constant percentage of the Partnership costs, other than the insignificant currency trading costs which are not based on a percentage of the Partnership’s assets allocated to trading or total. The Profit Shares payable to the Trading Advisor are based on the New Trading Profits generated by the Partnership excluding interest and after reduction for a portion of the brokerage commissions.

Unlike many investment fields, there is no meaningful distinction in the operation of the Partnership between realized and unrealized profits. Most of the contracts traded by the Partnership are highly liquid and can be closed out at any time.

Except in unusual circumstances, factors—regulatory approvals, cost of goods sold, employee relations and the like—which often materially affect an operating business, have no material impact on the Partnership.

Liquidity; Capital Resources

The Partnership borrows only to a limited extent and only on a strictly short-term basis in order to finance losses on non-U.S. dollar denominated trading positions pending the conversion of the Partnership’s U.S. dollar deposits. These borrowings are at a prevailing short-term rate in the relevant currency.

Substantially all of the Partnership’s assets are held in cash. The Net Asset Value of the Partnership’s cash is not affected by inflation. However, changes in interest rates could cause periods of strong up or down price trends, during which the Partnership’s profit potential generally increases. Inflation in commodity prices could also generate price movements, which the strategies might successfully follow.

The Partnership should be able to close out its open trading positions and liquidate its holdings relatively quickly and at market prices, except in unusual circumstances. This typically permits the Partnership to limit losses as well as reduce market exposure on short notice should its strategies indicate doing so.

As a commodity pool, the Partnership maintains an extremely large percentage of its assets in cash, which it must have available to post initial and variation margin on futures contracts. This cash is also used to fund redemptions. While the Partnership has the ability to fund redemption proceeds from liquidating positions, as a practical matter positions are not liquidated to fund redemptions. In the event that positions were liquidated to fund redemptions, MLAI, as the General Partner of the Partnership, has the ability to override decisions of the Trading Advisor to fund redemptions if necessary, but in practice the Trading Advisor would determine in its discretion which investments should be liquidated.

(The Partnership has no applicable off-balance sheet arrangements or tabular disclosure of contractual obligations of the type described in Items 3.03(a)(4) and 3.03(a)(5) of Regulation S-K)

Recent Accounting Developments

Recent accounting developments are discussed in Exhibit 13.01

Item 7A: Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Introduction

The Partnership is a speculative commodity pool. The market sensitive instruments held by it 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.

Market movements result in frequent changes in the fair market value of the Partnership’s open positions and, consequently, in its earnings and cash flow. 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 positions and the liquidity of the markets in which it trades.

The Partnership, under the direction of Sunrise, 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.

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

December 31, 2013

	Average		% of Average		Highest Value		Lowest Value
Market Sector	Value at Risk		Capitalization		At Risk		At Risk

Currencies	$	1,350,008	2.31	%	$	2,586,952	$	152,393
Metals	1,389,055		2.38	%	2,744,174		109,769
Stock Indices	1,206,416		2.06	%	2,615,611		505,278
Interest Rates	616,848		1.06	%	818,769		256,251
Energy	148,706		0.25	%	410,249		15,768
Agricultural Commodities	372,339		0.64	%	766,026		193,103

TOTAL	$	5,083,372	8.70	%	$	9,941,781	$	1,232,562

December 31, 2012

	Average		% of Average		Highest Value		Lowest Value
Market Sector	Value at Risk		Capitalization		At Risk		At Risk

Currencies	$	1,008,781	1.06	%	$	2,364,944	$	90,564
Metals	657,510		0.69	%	1,122,328		244,104
Stock Indices	2,659,692		2.81	%	4,691,664		1,362,157
Interest Rates	151,931		0.16	%	320,634		17,225
Energy	2,052,061		2.17	%	4,195,504		492,784
Agricultural Commodities	1,110,294		1.17	%	2,277,960		138,050

TOTAL	$	7,640,269	8.06	%	$	14,973,034	$	2,344,884

Material Limitations on Value at Risk as an Assessment of Market Risk

The face value of the market sector instruments held by the Partnership is typically many times the applicable maintenance margin requirement (maintenance margin requirements generally ranging between approximately 1% and 10% of contract face value) as well as many times the capitalization of the Partnership. The magnitude of the Partnership’s open positions creates a “risk of ruin” not typically found in most other investment vehicles. Because of the size of its positions, certain market conditions — unusual, but historically recurring from time to time — could cause the Partnership to incur severe losses over a short period of time. The foregoing Value at Risk table — as well as the past performance of the Partnership — gives no indication of this “risk of ruin.”

Non-Trading Risk

Foreign Currency Balances; Cash on Deposit with MLPF&S

The Partnership has non-trading market risk on its foreign cash balances not needed for margin. However, these balances (as well as the market risk they represent) are immaterial.

The Partnership also has non-trading market risk on the approximately 90% of its assets which are held in cash at MLPF&S. The value of this cash is not interest rate sensitive, but there is cash flow risk in that if interest rates decline so will the cash flow generated on these monies.

Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Primary Trading Risk Exposures

The following qualitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures — except for (i) those disclosures that are statements of historical fact and (ii) the descriptions of how the Partnership manages its primary market risk exposures — constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. The Partnership’s primary market risk exposures as well as the strategies used

Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Non-Trading Risk Exposure

The following were the only non-trading risk exposures of the Partnership as of December 31, 2013.

Foreign Currency Balances

The Partnership’s primary foreign currency balances are in Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Swiss franc and Euros.

U.S. Dollar Cash Balance

The Partnership holds U.S. dollars only in cash at MLPF&S. The Partnership has immaterial cash flow interest rate risk on its cash on deposit with MLPF&S in that declining interest rates would cause the income from such cash to decline.

Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Means of Managing Risk Exposure

Trading Risk

MLAI has procedures in place intended to control market risk, although there can be no assurance that they will, in fact, succeed in doing so. While MLAI does not intervene in the markets to hedge or diversify the Partnership’s market exposure, MLAI may urge Sunrise to reallocate positions in an attempt to avoid over-concentrations. However, such interventions are unusual, except in cases in which it appears that Sunrise has begun to deviate from past practice and trading policies or to be trading erratically, MLAI’s basic control procedures consist of the ongoing process of monitoring Sunrise with the market risk controls being applied by Sunrise.

Sunrise Risk Management

While Sunrise relies on mechanical technical trading systems in making investment decisions, the overall strategy does include the latitude to deposit from this approach if market conditions are such that, in the opinion of Sunrise, exertion of trades recommended by the mechanical systems would be difficult or unusually risky to an account.

Non-Trading Risk

The Partnership controls the non-trading exchange rate risk by regularly converting foreign balances back into U.S. dollars at least once per week, and more frequently if a particular foreign currency balance becomes unusually high.

The Partnership has cash flow interest rate risk on its cash on deposit with MLPF&S in that declining interest rates would cause the income from such cash to decline. However, a certain amount of cash or cash equivalents must be held by the Partnership in order to facilitate margin payments and pay expenses and redemptions. MLAI does not take any steps to limit the cash flow risk on its cash held on deposit at MLPF&S.

Item 8: Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

	Fourth		Third			Second		First		Fourth			Third			Second			First
	Quarter		Quarter			Quarter		Quarter		Quarter			Quarter			Quarter			Quarter
	2013		2013			2013		2013		2012			2012			2012			2012
Total Income (Loss)	$	5,652,965	$	(2,322,832	)	$	2,555,969	$	1,004,995	$	(4,025,962	)	$	(519,331	)	$	(12,924,325	)	$	(1,243,701	)
Total Expenses	775,500		810,463			900,200		959,880		1,064,473			1,296,513			1,472,882			1,657,465
Net Income (Loss)	$	4,877,465	$	(3,133,295	)	$	1,655,769	$	45,115	$	(5,090,435	)	$	(1,815,844	)	$	(14,397,207	)	$	(2,901,166	)

Net Income (Loss) per weighted average Unit	$	20.53	$	(12.21	)	$	5.97	$	0.15	$	(15.31	)	$	(4.97	)	$	(36.54	)	$	(6.94	)

The financial statements required by this Item are included in Exhibit 13.01.

The supplementary financial information (“information about oil and gas producing activities”) specified by Item 302(b) of Regulation S-K is not applicable.

Item 9: Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A: Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

MLAI’s Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of the Partnership, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) or Rule 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act) with respect to the Partnership as of and for the year which ended December 31, 2013, and, based on its evaluation, has concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting:

The Partnership’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of MLAI’s Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of the Partnership and is effected by management, other personnel and service providers to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and included those policy 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 transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Partnership are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Partnership; and

· Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisitions, use or disposition of the Partnership’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risks that controls may become inadequate because of changes in condition, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

The Partnership’s management assessed the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO 1992) in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework”.

Based on its assessment the Partnership’s management concluded that at December 31, 2012, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting was effective.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

No change in internal control over financial reporting (in connection with Rule 13a-15 or Rule 15d-15 under the Securities Exchange Act) occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2013 that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control, over financial reporting.

Item 9B: Other Information

Not applicable

PART III

Item 10: Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

10(a) and 10(b) Identification of Directors and Executive Officers:

As a limited partnership, the Partnership has no officers or directors and is managed by its general partner MLAI. Trading decisions are made by the Trading Advisor on behalf of the Partnership.

The managers and executive officers of MLAI and their respective business backgrounds are as follows:

Keith Glenfield		Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager

Barbra E. Kocsis		Chief Financial Officer and Vice President

Spencer Boggess		Vice President and Manager

James D. Bowden		Vice President and Manager

Dominick A. Carlino		Vice President and Manager

James L. Costabile		Vice President and Manager

Nancy Fahmy		Vice President and Manager

Ninon Marapachi		Vice President and Manager

Jeff McGoey		Vice President and Manager

Greg Parets		Vice President and Manager

Colleen R. Rusch		Vice President and Manager

Steven L. Suss		Vice President and Manager

Keith Glenfield, age 39, has been the Chief Executive Officer and President of MLAI since June 2013. Mr. Glenfield has been a Managing Director and Head of Global Wealth and Retirement Solutions group’s (“GWRS”) Alternative Investments Group, a division within BAC that provides investment professionals and their clients with access to investment products and other services, since September 2012. GWRS is a business unit within the BAC Global Wealth & Investment Management Group (“GWIM”), a division within BAC. In this role, Mr. Glenfield is responsible for product management and development, strategy, operating risk and controls and other aspects of BAC’s alternative investment platform. From August 2009 through August 2012, Mr. Glenfield was the Chief Operating Officer of GWRS. In addition to his responsibilities as Chief Operating Officer of GWRS, Mr. Glenfield was also responsible for leading business development within GWRS’s Capital Markets Group from January 2012 through August 2012. Prior to assuming these roles Mr. Glenfield was the Chief Administration Officer for GWRS’s Capital Markets Group from August 2008 until August 2009 and GWRS’s Investment Management and Guidance Group from April 2008 to August 2008. Prior to becoming Chief Administration Officer for GWRS’s Investment Management and Guidance Group, Mr. Glenfield was responsible for the Financial Planning and Wealth Management Analytics team within GWRS from February 2005 through April 2008. Mr. Glenfield has been registered with the CFTC as an associated person and listed as a principal of MLAI since June 10, 2013. Mr. Glenfield has also been registered with the CFTC as an associated person of MLPF&S since June 10, 2013. Mr. Glenfield holds a B.S. degree in Finance from the College of New Jersey and an M.B.A. from Rutgers University.

Barbra E. Kocsis, age 47, is the Chief Financial Officer for MLAI, has been listed with the CFTC as a principal of MLAI since May 21, 2007 and is a Director within BAC’s Global Wealth Investment Management Technology and Operations group, positions she has held since October 2006. Ms. Kocsis’ responsibilities include providing a full range of specialized financial and tax accounting services for the Alternative Investment products offered through the Selling Agent. She graduated cum laude from Monmouth College with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration — Accounting.

Spencer Boggess, age 46, has been a Vice President of MLAI since January 2014. Mr. Boggess has served as a Managing Director and the Head of Alternative Investments Due Diligence for Merrill Lynch’s Wealth Management with GWRS since March 2009 with responsibility for research and due diligence for hedge funds, private equity and third party fund of funds. During this time, Mr. Boggess has also served as Portfolio Manager for a range of registered and private placement fund of funds. Prior to this, Mr. Boggess served as Head of Hedge Fund Research and Investment at BAC from July 2007 through March 2009 and President and CEO of Bank of America Capital Advisors LLC (“BACA”) from July 2007 to present. BACA is an investment advisor focusing on alternative investment products. Mr. Boggess has been listed as a principal of MLAI since January 2, 2014. Mr. Boggess received his B.A. degree from the University of Virginia and has also done graduate work at the University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Foreign Affairs.

James D. Bowden, age 60, has been a Vice President of MLAI since January 2014. Mr. Bowden joined BACA in March 1998 to form the group and to manage BAC’s private equity fund of funds business. In that capacity, he has acted as the primary investment strategist for various private placement offerings and client advisory activities associated with the private equity asset class. He has also served as a member of BACA’s investment committee since March 1998. In addition, Mr. Bowden has assisted GWIM professionals with the marketing and fundraising efforts for BAC’s private equity fund of funds products since March 1998. Mr. Bowden has been listed as a principal of MLAI since January 2, 2014. Mr. Bowden received his M.B.A. and his B.B.A. degree from the University of Michigan. He is a Certified Public Accountant.

Dominick A. Carlino, age 41, has been a Vice President of MLAI since January 2014. Mr. Carlino has been a Managing Director within GWRS heading Relationship Management and Business Development since May 2013. In his role, he is responsible for enhancing and driving relationships between MLAI and key asset management partners. Mr. Carlino was on a garden leave from July 2012 through May 2013. Prior to joining Merrill Lynch, Mr. Carlino was Senior Managing Director and Head of Business Development at AlphaOne Capital Partners LLC, an equity-focused alternative asset management firm, from March 2011 through July 2012. From April 2005 through March 2011, he served as an Executive Director within Morgan Stanley Alternative Investment Partners LP, a registered commodity pool operator, focused on business development and distribution. Mr. Carlino has been listed as a principal of MLAI since January 2, 2014. Mr. Carlino holds an M.B.A. and a B.S. degree in Finance from Villanova University.

James L. Costabile, age 38, has been a Vice President of MLAI and a Managing Director within GWRS responsible for alternative investment distribution for BAC since July 2007 and US Trust since January 2009. U.S. Trust is a division of BAC. Mr. Costabile has been listed as a principal of MLAI since July 14, 2010. He has also been registered with the CFTC as an associated person of MLPF&S since August 20, 2007. Mr. Costabile was previously registered as an associated person of Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a broker-dealer within Citigroup, Inc., a global financial services company, from December 5, 2003 to July 6, 2007. Mr. Costabile was responsible for, among other things, sales of alternative investment products to high net worth and institutional clientele at Citigroup Global Markets Inc. from November 7, 1997 to July 6, 2007. As part of MLAI’s management team, Mr. Costabile oversees the team of sales professionals and specialists responsible for supporting hedge funds, private equity and real asset offerings. Mr. Costabile received a B.S. from Fordham University and holds the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst designation.

Nancy Fahmy, age 39, has been a Vice President of MLAI since January 2014. Ms. Fahmy has been a Managing Director within GWRS and responsible for Private Equity and Real Assets Technical Sales and Origination within MLAI since December 2012. She joined MLAI as a Director in November 2008 and was head of Private Equity and Real Assets Technical Sales from that date to December 2012. In these capacities, Ms. Fahmy was responsible for a team of private equity and real assets specialists that worked with financial advisors, portfolio managers and clients to educate and raise capital. Ms. Fahmy has been listed as a principal of MLAI since January 9, 2014. Ms. Fahmy was previously an NFA Associate Member and registered as an Associated Person of MLPF&S from March 2009 to November 2010. Ms. Fahmy holds a B.S. degree in Business Administration and Finance with a minor in Economics from the University of Delaware.

Ninon Marapachi, age 36, has been a Vice President of MLAI since January 2014. Mr. Marapachi has been the head of the Hedge Fund Origination and Product Management team within the BAC Alternative Investments Group, a division within BAC that provides investment professionals and their clients with access to investment products and other services, since September 2008. Her team is responsible for sourcing, structuring, negotiating and managing hedge funds and

managed futures products on GWRS’ hedge fund platform. In addition, since September 2013 she has been a Director for the Board of Sponsors for Educational Opportunities, a non-profit organization with a goal to provide educational and career programs to young people from underserved communities to maximize their opportunities for higher education and future success. Ms. Marapachi has been an NFA Associate Member since February 2011 and registered as an Associated Person of MLPF&S since March 2011. Ms. Marapachi has been listed as a principal of MLAI since January 3, 2014. Ms. Marapachi graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. degree in Economics from Mount Holyoke College.

Jeff McGoey, age 37, has been a Vice President of MLAI and a Director within GWRS responsible for Alternative Investment Platform Oversight for BAC since December 2010. Mr. McGoey served as a Vice President with portfolio oversight to ten derivative based closed end funds from March 2009 through December 2010. Within GWRS Alternative Investments since May 2008, Mr. McGoey was a Vice President holding various roles including hedge fund and private equity origination, exchange fund and customized fund oversight, and has managed various strategic initiatives across the organization until December 2010. Mr. McGoey has been listed as a principal of MLAI since January 13, 2014. Mr. McGoey is a CFA Charter holder, maintains the CAIA designation and holds a B.A. degree in Economics from Rutgers College in New Jersey.

Greg Parets, age 37, has been Head of Cross Platform Initiatives for the Alternative Investments Group of GWIM since June 2013. Mr. Parets joined BAC in September 2010 as Head of Strategic Initiatives in the Alternative Investments Group’s Origination & Product Management team and remained in this role until June 2013. In this role, he led creation and implementation of an industry-leading platform to offer hedge funds, managed futures, and select private equity funds to advisory accounts. Mr. Parets was in between employers from April 2010 to September 2010. Prior to joining BAC, he worked at UBS Wealth Management Americas, a provider of wealth management products and services, where he was Team Lead for the Strategy & Business Development Group from July 2006 through January 2009 and Head of Segment Strategy & Client Experience from February 2009 through April 2010. Mr. Parets has been listed as a principal of MLAI since January 2, 2014. Mr. Parets graduated summa cum laude from The George Washington University with a B.B.A. degree in International Business and cum laude from Harvard Law School with a J.D.

Colleen R. Rusch, age 46, has been a Vice President of MLAI and a Managing Director within GWRS responsible for overseeing GWRS Alternative Investments operations and trading platform since January 2008. Ms. Rusch has been listed as a principal of MLAI since September 14, 2010. In addition, from July 2005 to October 2010, Mrs. Rusch served as Chief Administrative Officer and Vice President of IQ Investment Advisors LLC (“IQ”), an investment advisory firm, and served as Vice President and Secretary of each of IQ’s publicly traded closed-end fund companies. Ms. Rusch holds a B.S. degree in Business Administration from Saint Peter’s College in New Jersey.

Steven L. Suss, age 54, has been a Vice President of MLAI since June 2012. He has been a Managing Director within GWRS’s Alternative Investments Group since January 2008, responsible for managing finance, operational and other business aspects of BAC’s alternative investment platform. Mr. Suss has been listed as a principal of MLAI since June 12, 2012. Mr. Suss is also a director and the President of BACAP Alternative Advisors Inc. (“BACAP”), an alternative investment advisor affiliated with BAC. He has held these positions at BACAP since July 1, 2007, and is responsible for the management and supervision of the overall business of BACAP. Mr. Suss has also served as Senior Vice President of BACA since July 2007 and has been listed as a principal of BACA since November 19, 2012. Mr. Suss is responsible within BACA for the management of financial reporting and the operational affairs of the investment vehicles managed by BACA. Mr. Suss received a B.B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin.

As of December 31, 2013, the principals of MLAI had no investment in the Partnership, and MLAI’s general partner interest in the Partnership was valued at $699,838.

MLAI acts as the sponsor, general partner or manager to eight public futures funds whose units of limited partnership interests or limited liability company interests are registered under the Securities Exchange Act: Aspect FuturesAccess LLC, ML BlueTrend FuturesAccess LLC, Man AHL FuturesAccess LLC, ML Select Futures I L.P., Systematic Momentum FuturesAccess LLC, ML Transtrend DTP Enhanced FuturesAccess LLC, ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P, and ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC. Because MLAI serves as the sole sponsor, general partner or manager of each of these funds, the officers and managers of MLAI effectively manage them as officers and directors of such funds.

None.

PART IV

Item 15: Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

1. Financial Statements (found in Exhibit 13.01):

	Page:

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM	1

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:

Statements of Financial Condition as of December 31, 2013 and 2012	2

Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011	3

Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011	4

Financial Data Highlights for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011	5

Notes to Financial Statements	6

2. Financial Statement Schedules:

Financial statement schedules not included in this Form 10-K have been omitted for the reason that they are not required or are not applicable or that equivalent information has been included in the financial statements or notes thereto.

3. Exhibits:

The following exhibits are incorporated by reference or are filed herewith to this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

Designation		Description

3.01		Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership of ML Select Futures I L.P.

Exhibit 3.01:		Is incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.01 contained in the registrant’s Registration Statement on Form 10 filed on April 30, 2003 (the “Registration Statement”).

3.02		ML Select Futures I L.P. Twelfth Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement.

Exhibit 3.02		Is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.01 contained in the registrant’s Report on Form 8-K, filed on March 16, 2011.

3.03		Amendment to ML Select Futures I L.P. Twelfth Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement.

Exhibit 3.03:		Is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.02(i) contained in the registrant’s Report on Form 8-K filed on November 11, 2013.

10.01		Advisory Agreement among ML Select Futures I L.P., Merrill Lynch Investment Partners Inc. and Sunrise Capital Partners LLC.

Exhibit 10.01:		Is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.03 contained in the Registration Statement.

10.02		Customer Agreement between ML Select Futures I L.P. and Merrill Lynch Futures Inc.

Exhibit 10.03:		Is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.02 contained in the Registration Statement.

13.01		2013 Annual Report and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

Exhibit 13.01:		Is filed herewith.

31.01 and 31.02		Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications.

Exhibit 31.01 and 31.02:		Are filed herewith.

32.01 and 32.02		Section 1350 Certifications.

Exhibit 32.01 and 32.02:		Are filed herewith.

101		The following materials from the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language): ( i )Statements of Financial Condition (ii) Statements of Operations (iii) Statements of Changes in Members’ Capital (iv) Financial Data Highlights and (v) Notes to Financial Statements, tagged as blocks of text.

Exhibit 101		Is filed herewith.

SIGNATURES

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

ML SELECT FUTURES I L.P.

By: MERRILL LYNCH ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS GENERAL PARTNER

By:	/s/Keith Glenfield
Keith Glenfield
Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager
(Principal Executive Officer)

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

Signature	Title	Date

/s/Keith Glenfield	Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Keith Glenfield	(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Barbra E. Kocsis	Chief Financial Officer and Vice President	March 25, 2014
Barbra E. Kocsis	(Principal Financial Officer)

/s/Spencer Boggess	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Spencer Boggess

/s/James D. Bowden	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
James D. Bowden

/s/Dominick A. Carlino	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Dominick A. Carlino

/s/James L. Costabile	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
James L. Costabile

/s/Nancy Fahmy	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Nancy Fahmy

/s/Ninon Marapachi	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Ninon Marapachi

/s/Jeff McGoey	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Jeff McGoey

/s/ Greg Parets	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Greg Parets

/s/Colleen R. Rusch	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Colleen R. Rusch

/s/Steven L. Suss	Vice President and Manager	March 25, 2014
Steven L. Suss

		Exhibit

Exhibit 13.01		2013 Annual Report and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Exhibit 31.01 and 31.02		Rule 13a - 14(a) / 15d - 14(a) Certifications

Exhibit 32.01 and 32.02		Sections 1350 Certifications

Exhibit 101		The following materials from the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language): ( i )Statements of Financial Condition (ii) Statements of Operations (iii) Statements of Changes in Members’ Capital (iv) Financial Data Highlights and (v) Notes to Financial Statements, tagged as blocks of text.